
Class 
BooL 



^.^ 



Rz 



Copyiiglit]»J?. 



COF?RIGHT DEPOSm 



The Origin of 
Christian Science 



A Key to the Writings of 
Mary Baker G. Eddy 



-BY- 



T. P. STAFFORD, A.M., TH. D. 







THE WESTERN BAPTIST PUBLISHING CO. 
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI. 
1912. 



3/& isS 
.§7 



< 



gCI.A3l9669 



^ 

T 



Copyrighted, 1912, 
By T. P. Stafford. 



DEDICATION 

To the memory of my mother, 
who lived and died in the faith 
that Jesus of Nazareth is the 
Way, the Truth and the Life, 
and who first taught me to love 
the Gospel and to hate heresy. 



CONTENTS. 

PREFACE ix. 

INTRODUCTION xi. 

CHAPTER I. 

The Problem and the Proof 15-32 

Mrs. Eddy's claim of originality — Relation of 
Christianity and Christian Science — The original 
source of Christian Science — Neoplatonism and 
the Neoplatonists — Spinoza and other sources. 
Where what is new in Christian Science is to be 
found — Scientific method used — An objection an- 
ticipated. 

CHAPTER II. 
Theology 33-73 

General parallels — Christian Science a form of 
pantheism — The doctrine of emanation — Mrs. 
Eddy's god an impersonal god — Mrs. Eddy's god 
not an individual — All anthropomorphic concep- 
tions ruled out — God a being without will — Cer- 
tain kinds of knowledge denied to God — God ex- 
ists in active state only — God does not suffer — 
God is without sympathy — God does not answer 
prayer — The indifferent deity of Christian Science. 

CHAPTER III. 

Cosmology 74-112 

The unreality of matter — Rejection of medicine — 
Rejection of the Lord's Supper — Rejection of the 
resurrection of the body — Instances in which Mrs. 
Eddy does not apply the principle of the unreality 
of matter — Other inconsistencies — Mind the cre- 
ator of the world — Eternal character of creation — 
The world eternal — The creative act eternal — The 
world necessarily created — The perfection of the 
world — The harmony of all things — The beauty 
of the world — Miracles denied. 



vi. The Origin of Christian Science, 

CHAPTER IV. 

Anthropology 113-157 

Preliminary explanations — The real man eternal 
and perfect — Definition of life — Its relation to 
eternity and time — Identification of certain ideas 
— Man identified with his maker — Man not a free 
agent — The fall of man interpreted as an ascent — 
Mrs. Eddy's doctrine compared with Hegel's — The 
explanation of the nature of Jesus Christ — Christ 
identified with mind — The resurrection of Christ 
not an objective fact but a spiritual truth — The 
trinity — Mrs. Eddy's estimate of herself. 

CHAPTER V. 

Psychology 158-206 

Great value of parallels in psychology — One infi- 
nite mind — Relation of individual minds to the 
universal mind — A point of difference — A destruc- 
tive defect — Nature of "immortal Mind" — It is 
ever active, never passive — Source of its knowl- 
edge — Its ideas eternal — It errs not and knows not 
error — Nature of error — Psychological basis of the 

Christian Science trinity — Knowledge that pro- 
ceeds from cause to effect — Inferior knowledge — 
Idea of time — Minimizing of faith — The human 

will — Knowledge that proceeds from effect to 
cause — Hopeless inconsistencies — Love identified 
with understanding — Logical force of the parallels 
traced out — Hindrance of language — Identifica- 
tion of revelation and intellectual discovery — Mys- 
ticism — Predictive prophecy — Mathematical dem- 
onstration. 

CHAPTER VI. 

Ethics 207-236 

Christian Science a philosophy, not a religion — 
Evil a negation — Material origin of evil — Origin 
of the idea of evil — God has no idea of evil — Pain 
and sickness explained as evil is — How Chris- 
tian Science simplifies life — The virtues of tem- 



Contents. vii. 

perance, moral courage, love and sympathy — De- 
sire and self-denial — Blessedness, salvation and 

regeneration — The greatest good — Found in the 
fading out of personality — Conclusion. 
Bibliography 237-240 



PREFACE, 

For years I have been acquainted with Chris- 
tian Science. It was, however, by accident that 
I discovered its source. Without intending to do 
so, I ran upon the very hatchery of it. Several 
years ago I formed the purpose of pointing out 
the Neoplatonic elements in the philosophy of Spi- 
noza. In doing this I was compelled to study 
thoroughly both Spinoza and the Neoplatonists. 
Upon getting some accurate knowledge of their 
systems of philosophy I saw that Christian 
Science has much in common with them. 

I then formed the purpose, so soon as that 
task was completed, of showing the dependence 
of Mrs. Eddy on the Neoplatonists. Without a 
suggestion from me, a friend who read the manu- 
script observed the kinship between Neoplatonism 
as therein presented and Christian Science, and 
encouraged me to do this work also. As I pur- 
sued it my surprise constantly increased, as I dis- 
covered more and more the identity of the multi- 
tudinous ideas of the two systems. It can be 
truthfully said that Christian Science is little 
more than Neoplatonism translated into English 
and adapted to our theological vocabulary. 

The two tasks, the second of which would not 
have been possible without the first, have re- 
quired much patient labor, and have been accom- 
plished in the midst of many other duties and dis- 
tracting cares, but not in haste. The work has, 
I think, been accurately done. 

There is another reason why I have written 
this book. Christian Science embodies much of the 
subtlest infidelity of our time, such as is found in 
Unitarianism, Universalism, New Thought and 
Higher Criticism of the destructive type. It is prop- 
er that we give some attention to the breeding place 



X. The Origin of Christian Science. 

of these carriers of religious microbes that infect 
Christian life with so much poison. Beelzebub, 
''the lord of flies," as the name signifies, is still 
sending forth his emissaries. Unbelief does not 
now say that Christ is Beelzebub, but on the con- 
trary it says that the flies come from Christ and 
should be welcomed by us. When we discover 
the place whence they do come, we may be more 
inclined to screen our houses against them. 

There are two false opinions of Christian 
Science. The one is cherished by its friends, 
namely, that it is an interpretation of and a devel- 
opment of Christianity; the other is held by its 
foes, namely, that it is a conglomeration of the 
crazy fancies of a distorted brain. Neither is true. 
Christian Ccience is a stream that rises in as high 
and pure a fountain of thought as the world has pro- 
duced, except that it is pagan and not Christian. 

The proof presented in this essay will be con- 
clusive in proportion to one's accuracy of knowl- 
edge of Christian Science or Neoplatonism. 
Therefore it is especially and respectfully com- 
mended to all well-informed Christian Scientists, 
as well as to all others, whose minds are sufficient- 
ly developed to appreciate the "deep things" that 
are herein dealt with. 

One criticism upon the manuscript has been 
made by friends. It is that the treatment is too 
abstruse for the popular mind. I fear that it may 
prove to be true but I hope for a better result. I 
am in a "strait betwixt two," plow deep and ex- 
plain Christian Science, or scratch the surface and 
accomplish nothing. I have chosen the former. 
Christian Science is a profound philosophy. Its 
roots strike deep and we must dig deep to get at 
them. Those who understand Christian Science or 
who are tolerably versed in philosophy will be able 
to follow without difficulty the argument. 

Canon City, Colo., February 17, 1912. 



INTRODUCTION. 
By Rev. F. C. McConnell, D.D. 

Dr. Stafford performed a duty to his fellow 
men, when he wrote this book. Few men are so 
well qualified as he, by nature and training, to 
accomplish such a task. 

Dr. Stafford has been a careful student of 
philosophy and theology for more than a decade 
of years since he was graduated from one of our 
best institutions and pursued studies in one of the 
German universities. 

It is but simple justice, to say that the book 
maintains throughout, the attitude of scholarly 
research and perfect fairness. It has not been 
the author's method to caricature, but to balance 
statement against statement, with the poise of a 
scholar who knows his ground and is familiar with 
the processes of thought, with which he deals, 
quoting correctly from sages and from modern 
scholars with equal facility, being versed in the 
Greek and the Latin tongues, in which the ancient 
authors wrote, and also in the German language 
in which are translations of their works. 

Let it be remembered that it is not Dr. Staf- 
ford's immediate purpose to refute Christian 
Science. He has taken for his task the single ob- 
ject of showing where the founder of Christian 
Science and the Neoplatonists agree. And this 
he does show to be true of their ideas, their philos- 
ophy and often of their verbiage itself, even to the 
use of imagery and illustration. Parallel thoughts 
and statements are introduced with conclusions 
reached, alike in both Neoplatonism and Christian 
Science, covering so completely the whole range of 



xii. The Origin of Christian Science. 

the writings of Mrs. Eddy that an irresistible con- 
viction is produced, that the author of Christian 
Science borrowed from the Neoplatonists, with 
here and there a flavor from Spinoza. 

Interest in these parallels is sustained and 
heightened to the last page of the book. A few 
parallel passages, here and there, might not excite 
comment, but when all the essential body of the 
system of Christian Science, covering the whole 
range of cosmology, psychology, theology and phil- 
osophy, is traceable to these Grecian philosophers, 
as Dr. Stafford shows, there is but one conclusion 
possible. 

The very delightful style of Dr. Stafford 
makes the book attractive from the beginning to 
the end; and the exceeding generosity of the au- 
thor toward the founder and the advocates of the 
cult whose sources he traces, challenges the good 
will of the reader from page to page. 

Dr. Stafford discloses the true nature of 
Christian Science in such a lucid manner, as to 
make his work desirable to those who care to know 
about the system whether friendly or opposed to 
the teachings of its author. 

Few men who are capable of such intricate re- 
search could have sustained the good spirit and im- 
partial fairness which are everywhere manifest. 
If Christian Science should live to need a history, 
or dying, want posthumous genealogy, or if one 
would now understand its true nature, let this book 
be commended. 

The author has given to the book the title: 
"The Origin of Christian Science'' — "A Key to the 
Writings of Mary Baker G, Eddy.'' The title, 
with the subscription, is itself explanatory of the 
plan of the treatment. Parallel passages are pro- 
duced and quoted, with citations made in footnotes 
to the authors from which they come. And these 
are compared with the writings of Mrs. Eddy on 



Introduction. xiii. 

the same subjects. Since the author of Christian 
Science claims to have given a key to the sacred 
Scriptures, it is but fitting that one who knows, 
should furnish a key to her writings. Dr. Staf- 
ford has shown that Plato was the manufacturer 
of that *'key" and has prior claim, and that he 
never thought of connecting it with the revelation 
sent down from heaven. He has also traced the 
course of those who have temporized with that 
"key" from Plato's day down through the cen- 
turies until Mrs. Eddy seized it and attempted to 
thrust it into the lock of eternity. 

Our debt to Dr. Stafford is enhanced by the 
clearness with which he has presented a very 
abstruse subject. The mysteries of human life 
are so deep and so little known that many people 
are helpless in the hands of those who would lead 
them. Witness those who resort to spiritism, 
mind-reading, fortune-telling and what not. Dr. 
Stafford has laid bare the very abstruse subjects 
involved in Platonic philosophy and Christian 
Science in such a way as to make them clear to all 
who seek to know the truth. He has shown by 
irrefutable evidence that Christian Science is a 
key which locks God out of his word and locks 
Jesus Christ out of his blood-bought kingdom. 

This key opens a door outward, where Plato 
and Plotinus and Proclus and Spinoza roam in the 
limitless unreal, but never can it open the door 
into the Father's house of many mansions. 

First Baptist Church, Waco, Texas. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE PROBLEM AND THE PROOF. 

One of the most remarkable movements of 
modern times is Christian Science. It claims 
hundreds of thousands of adherents. It has gone 
into many lands. It has made converts of the 
rich and the poor, the educated and the illiterate, 
of the mighty and the meek. When we note that 
it has accomplished this in the brief period of less 
than fifty years and consider the radical character 
of its teaching, affecting profoundly its followers 
religiously, medically, socially, and intellectually, 
we are the more ready to wonder at its rise and 
progress. 

Christian Science is associated with the name 
of Mary Baker G. Eddy. She claims to be the dis- 
coverer and founder of it. And this claim is re- 
iterated by all loyal Christian Scientists. No de- 
crees issuing from the Vatican have found a more 
ready response from loyal subjects than the ex- 
pressed will of Mrs. Eddy ; and no Pope, it seems, 
has assumed such sublime right to give command- 
ments to mankind. 

I am concerned in this essay with only one 
thing, namely, Mrs. Eddy's claim to be the dis- 
coverer and founder of Christian Science. The 
ability of Mrs. Eddy can be and, I think, should be 
freely conceded. In fact she has proved herself 



16 The Origin of Christian Science. 

to be a genius. Her moral character too has stood 
very well the fierce fires of criticism, though 
there are some things in her history and some 
qualities in her disposition that are not flattering. 
These matters, however, weigh nothing as con- 
cerns the question before us in this discussion, 
namely, the original source of the principles of 
Christian Science, 

Mrs. Eddy's claim expressed in her own lan- 
guage is as follows. She says: '*It was in 
Massachusetts in February, 1866, and after the 
death of the magnetic doctor, Mr. P. P. Quimby, 
whom Spiritualists would associate therewith, but 
who was in no wise connected with this event, that 
I discovered the Science of divine Metaphysical 
Healing, which I afterwards named Christian 
Science. The discovery came to pass in this way. 
During twenty years prior to my discovery I had 
been trying to trace all physical effects to a mental 
cause; and in the latter part of 1866 I gained the 
scientific certainty that all causation was Mind, 
and every effect a mental phenomenon." ^ Con- 
tinuing to explain she says: "I then withdrew 
from society about three years, — to ponder my 
mission, to search the Scriptures, to find the 
Science of Mind, that should take the things of 
God and show them to the creature and reveal 
the great curative Principle, — Deity." ' Speak- 



^ Retros. and Intros. p. 38. 
=* Retros. and Intros. p. 39. 

Note — The abbreviations, figures, etc., of the footnotes 
will be understood by an investigation of the Bibliography. 



The Problem and the Proof, 17 

ing again and in many places of this discovery, 
she says: **In following these leadings of scien- 
tific revelation, the Bible was my only textbook" ; ' 
"No human pen nor tongue taught me the science 
contained in this book" ; ' "I have found nothing in 
ancient or modern systems on which to found my 
own, except the teachings and demonstrations of 
our great Master and the lives of prophets and 
apostles. The Bible has been my only authority. 
I have had no other guide in the straight and nar- 
row way of Truth" ; ' ''Science is an emanation of 
divine Mind, and is alone able to interpret God 
aright. It has a spiritual and not a material 
origin. It is a divine utterance";* "He (Christ) 
left no definite rule for demonstrating the Prin- 
ciple of healing and preventing disease. This 
rule remained to be discovered in Christian 
Science" ; ' "The Scriptures gave no direct inter- 
pretation of the scientific basis for demonstrating 
the spiritual Principle of healing until our Heav- 
enly Father saw fit, through the Key to the Scrip- 
tures in Science and Health to unlock this mystery 
of godliness" ; * "The revelation of Truth in the 
understanding came to me gradually and appar- 
ently through divine power" ; ' "To one 'born of 
the flesh*, however. Divine Science must be a dis- 



* ^. and H. p. 110. 
2 8. and H. p. 110. 
' 8. and H. p. 126. 

* fi*. and H. p. 127. 
^ 8. and H. p. 147. 

' Retros. and Intros. p. 55 f. 
' 8. and H. p. 109. 



18 The Origin of Christian Science. 

covery. Woman must give it birth";' "All 
Science is a revelation."' How Mrs. Eddy can 
regard anything as being both a discovery and a 
revelation will be explained under the discussion 
of her psychology. Such terms are not inconsis- 
tent for her. She uses the adverb, "apparently," 
not to express doubt but desirable modesty. 

It is a daring claim that Mrs. Eddy makes 
and the way in which it is declared is most inter- 
esting. Nothing in all that Mrs. Eddy has writ- 
ten is so satisfactory and so unsatisfactory as this, 
so frank and so elusive. Read the statements 
carefully and see if they are not self -contradictory. 
What books or authorities was she studying dur- 
ing the twenty years before she discovered the 
principle of metaphysical healing, after which 
discovery she turned to the Scriptures? Since 
she confesses that Christ left no definite rule for 
demonstrating the principle of healing, how could 
the Bible be her only authority and "guide in the 
'straight and narrow way' of Truth"? And if 
this "rule remained to be discovered in Christian 
Science", which came to her as a divine revelation, 
has Christian Science a fundamental rule that 
was not taught by Christ? If so how can Chris- 
tian Science be founded on "the teachings and 
demonstrations of our great Master and the lives 
of prophets and apostles"? Mrs. Eddy confesses 
that the "definite rule for demonstrating the Prin- 
ciple of healing and preventing disease" is not in 



* Retros. and Intros. p. 42. 

* Retros. and Intros. p. 45. 



The Problem and the Proof. 19 

the teachings of Christ, but is in Christian 
Science. Now this rule is a fundamental princi- 
ple of Christian Science. It is the principle Mrs. 
Eddy claims to have discovered after twenty 
years of searching. "In following these leadings 
of scientific revelations," she says, "the Bible was 
my only text-book." But whence did she get 
"these leadings" in the following of which the 
Bible became her guide? 

But I need not so soon anticipate the line of 
argument. Look again at the language of this 
remarkable claim and see that these three things 
are clearly affirmed. 

1. That Mrs. Eddy is the discoverer and 
founder of Christian Science. 

2. That the Bible was her authority for the 
system. 

3. That she was not influenced by any other 
authorities. 

I undertake in this essay to prove that Mrs. 
Eddy's claim in all three counts just specified is 
false. If I show that she was influenced by 
others fundamentally, so much as to do little more 
than to reproduce their system, then I disprove 
the third proposition and show that the first and 
main element of her claim, namely, that she is 
the discoverer and founder of Christian Science, 
has no truth in it. If I show that the principles of 
Christian Science are in a system that is not only 
non-Christian and pagan but anti-Christian, a 
system that was inspired by those who wanted 
to resist the spreading tide of Christianity, then I 



20 The Origin of Christian Science. 

disprove the second point of her claim. Mrs. 
Eddy's language suggests her mental process and 
a plan of procedure for us in our investigation. 
She says that "in the latter part of 1866 I gained 
the scientific certainty that all causation was 
Mind and every effect a mental phenomenon." 
This she claims was a great discovery, but it is no 
new doctrine. Armed with this theory and the 
many views logically connected with it in a philo- 
sophic system which Christian Science is little 
more than a reproduction of, Mrs. Eddy turned to 
the Bible and studied it three years. For what? 
To read this philosophy into it. 

The prudence of Mrs. Eddy kept her from 
claiming that she found in the Bible the "scientific 
certainty that all causation was Mind and every 
effect a mental phenomenon". This is that "defi- 
nite rule" that was "discovered in Christian 
Science". But what one may not get out of the 
Bible she may put into it. As a result we have 
''Key to the Scriptures". If any one doubts Mrs. 
Eddy's genius let him study this specimen of ver- 
bal and mental gynmastics. If she had been 
equally gifted for physical feats, the moon would 
have been a plaything for her. It is amazing that 
any number of persons can take this performance, 
this caricature, seriously. But necessity is the 
mother of invention. Mrs. Eddy had to get her 
system into the Bible or fail. It would not do to 
tell sick people that she could cure them by the 
metaphysics of a pagan philosophy. So she 
worked her ideas into the Bible and very natural- 



The Problem and the Proof. 21 

ly what she gets in she can get out. It should be 
said, however, as a matter of truth, that there are 
some ideas common to Christianity and Christian 
Science. This is only natural and what any one 
might expect. The same is true also of Chris- 
tianity and Buddhism. But these similarities are 
accidental. The two religions are essentially dif- 
ferent. So, too, there are a number of similari- 
ties between Christianity and Platonism and con- 
sequently between Christianity and Neoplatonism. 
And these are those similarities which appear be- 
tween Christianity and Christian Science. But 
these similarities, I repeat, are accidental ; that is, 
they do not belong to the genius of the two sys- 
tems. 

For example, Mrs. Eddy teaches the self- 
existence of God and says certain pretty things 
about it, quoting legitimately God's word to Moses 
at the ''burning bush", '7 am that I am". ' Now 
this truth is taught in the Bible. It is im- 
plied in the favorite name for God in the Old Tes- 
tament, Yahweh, improperly transliterated in 
King James' version, Jehovah. But this concep- 
tion of God was well proclaimed by Philo, who 
tried to harmonize Plato and the Old Testament, ' 
and was taught by the Neoplatonists ; and it would 
seem to be a necessary belief of every man who 
turns his reason to religion. Let it be said also 
in this connection that Philo's attempt to interpret 
the Old Testament according to Plato was a pre- 



^Ex. 3:14. cf. 8. and H. p. 252 f. 

' Ueberweg's Geschichte der Philosophie, Vol. I p. 356. 



22 The Origin of Christian Science, 

natal preparation for Christian Science. It is 
not my purpose to meddle with the Quimby ques- 
tion. Whether or not Mrs. Eddy was influenced 
by P. P. Quimby does not affect the contention 
herein made. One thing is certain, Quimby was 
not the originator of the principles of Christian 
Science. That Mrs. Eddy got many of her ideas 
from him is well established. ' But I am con- 
cerned with the original source of them. If 
Quimby had them where did he get them? To 
answer this question is the problem. 

And let it be stated without further delay that 
Christian Science is a system of ideas or philo- 
sophic principles. A philosophic system is a body 
of doctrines or a collection of conceptions that are 
logically related and interdependent. Let no one 
hastily conclude that Christian Science is a jumble 
of notions thrown together by a fanciful and un- 
systematic mind, or, as one puts it, "unorganized 
speculation". ' It is speculation but not unorgan- 
ized speculation. Many are bewildered when they 
attempt to understand Christian Science and are 
offended at what appears to be glaring inconsis- 
tencies. I do not deny that it contains irrecon- 
cilable inconsistencies. But many of the incon- 
sistencies complained at are only apparent and are 
the result of not understanding Mrs. Eddy's stand- 
point. If we grant her principles we must grant 



Cf. several articles in McClure's Magazine for 1907 by 
Georgine Milmine, especially the one in the Feb. No. 

Rev. O. P. Gifford in Review and Expositor, Vol. VIII 
No. 2, p. 196. 



The Problem and the Proof. 23 

most of her conclusions and admit that her appli- 
cation of them is in general legitimate. Mrs. 
Eddy realized this and so do all well-informed 
Christian Scientists. So they urge us to study 
her teachings much and carefully. Christian 
Science is a metaphysical system, as Mrs. Eddy 
claims ; and, as all students of metaphysics know, 
such a body of ideas must be carefully studied be- 
fore one can have even an intelligent opinion as 
to it. 

My purpose is to show that the metaphysical 
principles of Christian Science are a reproduction 
of those of Neoplatonism. How Mrs. Eddy came 
upon them I do not know and I do not care. Others 
may investigate that question. I am concerned 
with establishing a fact, not with how the fact 
came to be. Mrs. Eddy was aware of Neoplaton- 
ism as a historical event, and had some knowl- 
edge of its religious character. ' 

Neoplatonism, as the word indicates, is a 
modified form of Plato's philosophy. It is also an 
application of the principles of Platoism to re- 
ligion; that is, pagan religion. Christianity has 
felt its influence; but a zeal to revive paganism 
and to re-establish its power caused Neoplaton- 
ism to rise and reign for several centuries. It is 
perhaps the most powerful philosophical system 
that was ever given to the world. 

The honor of originating this system is at- 
tributed to Ammonius Saccas, a teacher of Alex- 



^No and Yes p. 23. 



24 The Origin of Christian Science. 

andria, who flourished in the first part of the 
third century after Christ. Almost nothing is 
known of him ; and he probably would have been 
entirely forgotten had it not been for his brilliant 
pupil, Plotinus, the real founder of Neoplatonism. 
He was born in Alexandria about the year 205 
A. D. He came to Rome in the year 244, where 
his lectures were received with great enthusiasm. 
He died in 270. Plato and Aristotle have had no 
follower whose thought is more penetrating or 
more sublime. 

The next greatest name among the Neoplat- 
onists, the one after whose death the school rap- 
idly declined, is Proclus, who lectured at Athens. 
He died in 485. For breadth of learning, for pro- 
ductiveness, for brilliancy of imagination, for ana- 
lytical ability, for gifts for systematizing his 
thoughts, for finished, scholarly productions, we 
shall hardly find his equal. He was a literary 
genius. 

There are two other great names second only 
to Plotinus and Proclus, namely, Porphyry, the 
pupil and great admirer of Plotinus, and lambli- 
chus, the pupil of Porphyry. The former was a 
popular expounder of the views of Plotinus; the 
latter was a fluent orator and religious enthusiast. 

After these five great names, the founders 
and builders of the structure, there come a host of 
others who have worked upon it and given it the 
touch of their genius. I mention Julian the Em- 
peror of Rome, called the Apostate, Syrianus, the 
predecessor and teacher of Proclus, Olympiodorius 



The Problem and the Proof. 25 

(the younger) , Marinus, Simplicius and the Chris- 
tians, Synesius and Boethius. Boethius was a 
Christian who subscribed to certain Neoplatonic 
principles, as many Christian theologians have 
done. Synesius was a Neoplatonist who adopted 
the Christian faith. He was more a philosopher 
than a Christian. The anti-Christian character 
of Neoplatonism is manifest in the fact that the 
Emperor Julian, who was mad against Christian- 
ity, was an enthusiastic supporter and defender 
of it. lamblichus was his teacher and guide. 

Neoplatonism is, I repeat, one of the mighti- 
est metaphysical systems that have been given to 
the world. Though it is a purely rational view 
of the universe and was at first inspired to defeat 
Christianity, by virtue of its intellectual power it 
affected profoundly scholastic theology. And not 
a few remains of it linger in modern theology and 
the "old" psychology. It professed to be unma- 
terialistic, spiritual and intellectual, as Christian 
Science does. 

We shall find in Christian Science certain 
features that show a modified or developed form 
of Neoplatonism. For example, Mrs. Eddy's con- 
ception of Christ, and of Christian theology in 
general, is in the main the same as Spinoza's, the 
great Jewish philosopher and the world's greatest 
pantheist. Now Spinoza did little more in his 
philosophy than to reproduce Neoplatonism and 
his teaching as to Christ is a forging of him into 
the Neoplatonic mould. He could not deny his 
historical reality. But he could attempt to ex- 



26 The Origin of Christian Science. 

plain him according to his philosophy. Mrs. Eddy, 
with the aid of the same philosophy, makes the 
same disposal of him. The refined and scholarly 
infideUt^^ of our age owes more to Spinoza and to 
David Hume, the great English historian and em- 
pirical philosopher, than to all other persons com- 
bined. 

That Mrs. Eddy borrowed from Bishop 
Berkeley or David Hume is a most superficial sug- 
gestion. That she resembles Ralph Waldo Emer- 
son is true, for he is little more than a Neoplaton- 
ist. That she has reproduced ideas of certain 
German philosophers, as Fichte and Hegel, is also 
true, many of whose conceptions were also Neo- 
platonic. ' 

That Mrs. Eddy's system is derived from In- 
dian philosophy, Brahmanism and Buddhism, is 
rather a guess, the general points of similarity 
thereto being also in Neoplatonism. ' 

That Mrs. Eddy is dependent on Plato is ob- 
vious to all who are acquainted with the thought 
of both. But it is Platonism as developed and 
modified by the Nepolatonists, that is, Platonism 
as used to characterize theology, that we find in 
Christian Science. Christian Science is an off- 
shoot, that is, a sucker, of Platonism. 

Again this, the mightiest thinker of the 
world, rises before us in a modern theological 
movement. The world has not yet freed itself 



* Cf. Retros. and Intros. p. 55. 

'Cf. The Pagan Invasion. Article in 8t. Louis Christian 
Advocate, March 27, 1912, by Rev. S. H. Walnright, D.D. 



The Problem and the Proof. 27 

from his moulding mind. If one imagines that 
Christian Science is a jumble of wild fancies or 
wonders that it has won to itself so many follow- 
ers of varying degrees of intelligence, it will be of 
benefit to him to know that Plato, from whom so 
many philosophic systems good, bad, and indif- 
ferent, have sprung, is in the background of tliis 
system also. Yes, no less a person than Plato 
stands there, at first in dim outline, but growing 
more distinct the longer we look, though Mrs. 
Eddy is unwilling that anyone should see him 
there. ' However, she does give to him the honor 
of dimly discernmg Christian Science. ' 

If there is one thing new in Christian Science 
it is the application of Plato's principle, that mat- 
ter is unreal, to the healing of the body. Plato, 
it may be supposed, was smart enough to see that, 
if the body is unreal, the healing of it is unreal in 
the same sense in which the body is. It does not 
take much of a philosopher to see that. If the 
unreality of matter means the non-existence of the 
body, as Mrs. Eddy argues, then it is illogical to 
speak of the healing of the body at all, for what 
does not exist cannot be sick nor healed. Surely 
this world-conquering thinker could see that, too. 
So, it may be, he concluded not to be troubled 
about therapeutics. Mrs. Eddy, however, could 
not thus compose her mind. "Aching voids" or 
painful non-entities were of great concern to her. 
But notwithstanding all Mrs. Eddy's talk 



^Cf. Betros. and Ititros. p. 78. 
^ Cf. No and Yes. p. 30. 



28 The Origin of Christian Science. 

about "healing, disease, death'*, etc., it should be 
understood that this is only an application of her 
principles. She calls it metaphysical healing, 
which means curing and preventing disease by the 
realizing of truth or true principles. And since 
she denies the existence of disease in the body, the 
healing she offers is not after all for the body but 
for the mind. But if the application of the un- 
reality of matter to healing be anything new, the 
credit for it belongs to P. P. Quimby, not to Mrs. 
Eddy. ' 

So this one new thing that might possibly be 
claimed for her vanishes also. Christian Science 
is a theory, not a practice. It is a system of prin- 
ciples, of metaphysics as she is proud to call it. 
If she had named it pagan philosophy, which it is, 
instead of Christian Science, which it is not, she 
would have killed it with the weight of its proper 
name. But Mrs. Eddy, as her literary adviser, 
Rev. J. H. Wiggin, said, "is nobody's fool." ' 

If, then, there is anything new or original 
in Christian Science it must be found in its meta- 
physical principles as such. To investigate this 
question and to show that Mrs. Eddy has discov- 
ered nothing is the object of this essay. 

The method pursued in this discussion is 
scientific. It is the method of literary or higher 
criticism. The ideas of the two systems are com- 
pared. The general rule is to give quotations 
from Mrs. Eddy and then follow them with quota- 



^ Cf. Georgine Milmine's article in McClure's, Feb., 1907. 
^ Cf. Georgine Milmine's article in McGlure's, Oct., 1907. 



The Problem and the Proof. 29 

tions from the Neoplatonists, commenting and ex- 
plaining the language of each. At times my dis- 
cussion may be quite lengthy. For both systems 
are abstruse and since the Neoplatonists wrote so 
long ago and in the Greek tongue and gave to the 
world so profound a system, considerable expla- 
nation of their language is necessary. My meth- 
od is not to berate, not to excite passion or humor, 
but to prove. It is detective work in the realm 
of ideas. 

I beg the reader to show patience and to read 
carefully the argument in the order in which it is 
given. The essay is brief and the subject im- 
portant. Other methods of dealing with Chris- 
tian Science have been used. This is a new treat- 
ment, and it should be an effective one. 

Let it be repeated that the force of the treat- 
ment herein pursued depends on the fact that both 
Neoplatonism and Christian Science are systems; 
that is, each is a body of ideas that are logically 
related and essentially interdependent. If this 
were not the case it would be useless to attempt to 
show the source of Mrs. Eddy^s ideas. If Chris- 
tian Science were not a system, similarities only 
could be affirmed ; dependence could not. 

But if a metaphysical system is not original, 
its source may be traced out and demonstrated by 
the best of proof. If only a few unrelated ideas are 
identical this may be accidental. But if the pri- 
mary principles are the same and if the working 
out of these principles in detail is the same; so 
that both systems have an array of identical ideas 



30 The Origin of Christian Science, 

in Theology, Cosmology, Anthropology, Christol- 
ogy, Psychology, and Ethics, it is conclusive that 
the later system is derived from the earlier. 

Mrs. Eddy claims that her system came by 
* 'divine utterance" or divine revelation. It will 
be shown that this expression with her means only 
intuitive discernment. But however the expres- 
sion may be understood, it will be seen that certain 
pagan and idolatrous intellects about fifteen hun- 
dred years ago had the same thoughts. 

My purpose is to prove this, to show that 
Mrs. Eddy is a philosophic plagiarist ; to trace her 
to her hiding place which is in the dark and to 
bring her out into the light, together with the 
plunder she has been keeping secret and to con- 
vict her before the bar of human judgment of the 
worst crime known to God and men, but for which 
there is neither prison nor exile nor death, the 
crime of soul-stealing. One who deceives his 
fellowmen in religious matters steals and sells 
their souls and is worse than a slave trader. A 
more successful literary and religious grafter than 
Mary Baker G. Eddy has never appeared. Let 
the honest doubter or seeker after truth read care- 
fully the argument and he will be convinced that 
this is a statement of fact. 

It seems proper to anticipate one objection 
that may be made against the argument as herein 
presented. Very likely it will be said that the 
quotations are "garbled." In advance I want to 
deny the charge. As a rule the quotations are 
not lengthy but they need not be. In every in- 



The Problem and the Proof. 31 

stance I am careful to represent correctly the 
thought of the writer. I appeal for a decision to 
those who understand Neoplatonism and Chris- 
tian Science or who are well acquainted with the 
authors whose language I quote. 

It is a suggestive fact that the style of Mrs. 
Eddy is like that of Plotinus in that one does not 
need to study the relation of words so much as that 
of ideas to appreciate her. At first their sen- 
tences seem to the reader disjointed, unrelated 
and thrown together carelessly. But when their 
philosophy is better understood we value more 
highly their choppy manner of writing. It is a 
case of the thought determining the style. We 
have another illustration of the same thing in the 
writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who shares 
honors with Mrs. Eddy in translating Neoplaton- 
ism into excellent modern English. They have 
such enthusiasm for the ideas of their masters 
that they imbibe their very style. One is trans- 
formed into the character of that which he ad- 
mires. He is conformed to that in which he 
works. Mr. Emerson and Mrs. Eddy are both 
metaphysicians and poets; and they have a style 
that fits their thoughts, since it was fashioned by 
their thoughts. This was true of the greatest of 
the Neoplatonists. Mrs. Eddy was gifted by na- 
ture to reproduce them. She does not argue ; she 
speaks dogmatically ; she announces as a revelator 
what she sees. And she is in truth a seer of Neo- 
platonism. The Neoplatonists delivered their 
views with the same assumed prophetic insight. 



32 The Origin of Christian Science, 

They did not need to give proof; or if they did it 
was an act of condescension. It was their privi- 
lege to deliver with oracular authority their mes- 
sage. 

Plotinus and Mrs. Eddy, like Ralph Waldo 
Emerson, have the style of great wits, namely, 
brevity. This is my defence — in which there is 
additional proof of my theory — for quoting them 
as I do. 



The following suggestions will be helpful to the reader. 

After going through this first chapter, which explains 
the general character of the argument, study the others also 
in the order in which they are found. Each subject is dis- 
cussed in the light of preceding developments. If one 
chooses not to follow this plan, then, to look at the table of 
contents, and select what topic he wants, is as good a way 
as any. The chapter on Psychology the author considers 
the most valuable, both for conducting the student into the 
heart of the subject and for conclusiveness of demonstration. 

The adhreviations, figures, etc., in the footnotes will 
he easily understood hy a little study of the Bibliography, 
which is recommended. 



CHAPTER II. 

THEOLOGY. 

It is easily seen that one's conceptions of the 
divine being are fundamental. The theology of 
a system that is really a system is its heart. This 
is true of both Christian Science and Neoplaton- 
ism. 

It may be said of Mrs. Eddy, as it was said of 
Spinoza, that she is God-intoxicated. She speaks 
repeatedly and constantly of the divine being. 
The term, God, or one of her synonyms for the 
term, occurs so often that one is tempted to ques- 
tion whether or not Mrs. Eddy takes the name of 
God in vain. But when we examine her thought 
and discover what she means by this holy name, 
how she dethrones it, how she robs it of its Biblical 
significance and glory, how she puts into it the 
conceptions of poor pagans and idealistic idol- 
aters, we conclude that it is not the third com- 
mandment that she breaks but the first: 'Thou 
shalt have no other gods before me." For, what 
in reality is idolatry? It is worshipping or mak- 
ing supreme one's idea of God rather than the true 
God, whether this idea has a physical embodi- 
ment, called an idol, or not. When one makes an 
idea or principle supreme and calls it God, he be- 
comes an idolater. Examine carefully Mrs. 
Eddy's own words and see that she does this. 



34 The Origin of Christian Science. 

Mrs. Eddy says of God, as the Neoplatonists 
do of the one, that he is indefinable : *'God, good, 
is self -existent and self -expressed, though indefin- 
able as a whole." ' Plotinus emphasizing Plato's 
thought, says: 'The One is ineffable in spoken 
or written word." ' Nevertheless, Mrs. Eddy un- 
dertakes to define God, and the Neoplatonists at- 
tempt to describe the one. 

She defines God as "Divine Principle, Life, 
Truth, Love, Soul, Spirit, Mind." ^ In the margin 
these terms are designated as ''Divine Synonyms." 
The initial letters being capitals is interesting. 
Again she says : "When the term Divine Princi- 
ple is used to signify Deity, it may seem distant 
or cold, until better apprehended. This Principle 
is Mind, Substance, Life, Truth, Love. When un- 
derstood. Principle is found to be the only term 
that fully conveys the ideas of God." ' Let it then 
be fixed in our thought that when Mrs. Eddy uses 
the word God she means principle. This she says 
expressly, and she builds up her system upon this 
conception of God. In this she is consistent. The 
definition is in harmony with her position that 
God and all reality are identical; that God is all 
that really is, and that all that really is is God. ' 

Whether these conceptions of God be true or 
not, one thing is true, that Mrs. Eddy in thus 
thinking is thinking the thoughts of others, but 



1 /Sf. and H. p. 213. 

2 6. 9. 4. Tr. by Fuller. 
' /Sf. and H. p. 115. 

* TV^o and Yes. p. 29. 

^ Cf. No and Yes. p. 47, and S. and H. p. 113. 



Theology. 35 

not the thoughts of the writers of the Bible. The 
reader of Mrs. Eddy's literature often finds 
''good'' as a synonym for God. She says : "God 
is good" and ''Good is Mind"; and explains that 
the statements may be reversed. ' Do not imagine 
that Mrs. Eddy has the conception of God as a 
being having this moral quality or any of the qual- 
ities suggested by the synonyms. She is rather 
identifying God with the principle of goodness. 
So she can say: God ''is represented only by the 
idea of goodness." ' Plotinus makes this distinc- 
tion very sharp. Though the one is denominated 
the good it must not be said, he affirms, that "he 
is good." ^ 

It is as illogical to conclude from the Scrip- 
ture statement, "God is love," * that God and love 
are identical, as to conclude from the statement, 
"God is light," ' that God and light are identical. 
The conception that God and the good are identical 
cannot be found in the Bible. But it is found 
often in Plato and his followers. Plato identified 
God and the good^ and Plotinus identified God 
and mind. ' The Neoplatonists talked much about 
the ''one" and the "good", which with them are 
synonyms for God. They are not thinking of a 
personal being but of the primary principle, which 



^ 8. and H. p. 113. cf. p. 52 and p. 76. cf. No and Yes. p. 45. 

» S. and H. p. 119. 

»Cf. 6. 7. 38. 

*lJohn 4:8. 

"1 John 1:5. 

'Cf. Ueberweg's Geschichte der Philosophie. Vol. I, p. 356. 

' Cf. Windelband's Hist, of Phil. 2. 2. 20. 7. 



36 The Origin of Christian Science, 

they so designate. The title of one of the books 
of Plotinus is, "On the Good or the One", ' by 
which he means God or first principle; and he 
calls the ''one" or God the ''principle of all 
things". ' Proclus says : 'The one is the same 
as the good". ' Spinoza used ''substance" as a 
synonym for God, meaning thereby, as does Mrs. 
Eddy, that which exists in and of itself. ' 

In addition to the specific points already 
noted, consider in general that Mrs. Eddy identi- 
fies God and certain qualities rather than ascribes 
them to him. Here so soon there comes before us 
a distinct tendency in Mrs. Eddy's thought corre- 
sponding to a distinct doctrine of the Neoplaton- 
ists, a tendency to raise the conception of the 
deity even to complete absence of all qualities. " 
This is necessary for those who imagine that all 
qualities imply limitation or finiteness and under- 
stand by the infinity of God simply "allness" ; and 
interpret it so as to destroy the personality of God. 

Thus far in this chapter I have been stating 
the case in a general way only. Now I take up 
definite points and the argument will be plainer 
and more conclusive. 

Coming then to the very heart of the matter, 
Mrs. Eddy is a pantheist. Christian Science is a 
form of pantheism. In saying this I am not call- 
ing Christian Science a bad name. I say it be- 



^6. 9. 

2 6. 9. 5. 

3 Cf. Works of Plotinus. p. 323. 
* Cf. Etn. 1. Def. 3 and 1. 11. 

" Cf. Windelband's Hist, of Phil. 2. 2. 20. 2. 



Theology. 37 

cause it is a fact and because it must be said in 
order to explain Christian Science. Mrs. Eddy 
tries hard to parry this charge, but it is impossi- 
ble to do it. Her case is hopeless. 

Mrs. Eddy, of course, is not a pantheist if 
her definition of pantheism be accepted. She 
says: ''Pantheism may be defined as a belief in 
the intelligence of matter", ' or ''that God, or Life, 
is in or of matter". ' But every person informed 
in philosophy ought to know and does know that 
this is only one kind of pantheism, namely, ma- 
terialistic pantheism. There is also idealistic 
pantheism, and Christian Science is this kind of 
pantheism. 

Mrs. Eddy, in saying that Jesus "established 
the only true idealism on the basis that God is 
all", ' confesses that her system is a kind of ideal- 
ism. Now when she identifies God with reality, 
all or infinite reality, and robs him of his per- 
sonality, as will be seen, she proclaims the doc- 
trine of idealistic pantheism. 

One who identifies God with nature is a pan- 
theist, an idealistic or materialistic pantheist, ac- 
cording to his conception of nature as ideal or ma- 
terial. Mrs. Eddy says: "In one sense God is 
identical with nature, but this nature is spiritual 
and is not expressed in matter." * "Spiritual" na- 
ture is, with Mrs. Eddy, of course, nature ideally 



* S. and H. p. 129. 

== /8f. and H. p. 27. cf. p. 259. 
^No and Yes. p. 47. 

* S. and H. p. 119. 



38 The Origin of Christian Science, 

conceived. We do well to pause here and compre- 
hend clearly what Mrs. Eddy means by "nature 
that is spiritual and not expressed in matter." 
Evidently from such a nature all material objects 
are excluded. Again she means nature with all 
temporal relations excluded, for that nature which 
is identical with God is eternal and without 
change. What kind of nature is this? The fol- 
lowing quotation will throw light on the question : 
"Principle and its idea is one, and this one is God, 
omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Being, 
and His reflection is man and the universe." ^ 
For Mrs. Eddy, "Principle and idea" or God and 
man constitute, it seems, the universe. As we are 
trying to follow Mrs. Eddy we must atterrpt 
to comprehend this doctrine however difficult the 
task is. But we can succeed as this is no newly 
traveled road. Many have gone this way before 
and made it possible for both the author of Chris- 
tian Science and us. I can promise the reader 
that it will be easier for him as we proceed; for, 
I repeat. Christian Science is a system of meta- 
physics and the study of other doctrines will make 
this one clearer. So let us go along carefully but 
steadily to the end. 

Mrs. Eddy again says : "Allness is the meas- 
ure of the infinite, and nothing less can express 
God";' "the only realities are the divine Mind 
and idea." ' It would be difficult for Mrs. Eddy 



^ 8. and H. p. 465 f. cf. p. 109. 
» 8. and H. p. 336. 
8 /8. and H. p. 109. 



Theology. 39 

to teach more plainly idealistic pantheism. But 
when she faces the issue squarely she denies em- 
phatically that she is a pantheist. ' Either she is 
ignorant of what pantheism is, or she is trying to 
avoid what she knows is a just charge and a tell- 
ing objection to her system. The world's great- 
est pantheists are not materialistic but idealistic 
pantheists; for example, Buddha, Plotinus, Spi- 
noza, Hegel. Of all pantheists Spinoza is the 
most thorough-going and pronounced and his pan- 
theism is determined by his expressed identifica- 
tion of God and nature. ' 

In this identification Spinoza uses the terms 
"natura naturans" and "natura naturata". This 
is a very good parallel to Mrs. Eddy's language. 
She identifies God with "noumena" and ''phe- 
nomena", ^ using terms that were made famous by 
Kant. Another of Mrs. Eddy's synonyms for 
God that should be recalled is the term ''Ego'\ 
which comes from Schelling. He attempted to 
combine the noumenon and phenomenon of Kant 
into one and named the product the ''Absolute 
Ego.'' Ego is the Latin first personal pronoun. 
Here we have pantheism tinged with a color of 
personalism. In Christian Science the tinge has 
faded out entirely though we have the meaning- 
less sign. Ego. * The pantheism of Christian 
Science, however, is not so extreme a type as is 



1 Cf. Ch. Sc. vs. Pan. p. 6f f. 

2 Cf. Eth. 1. 29. Note. cf. Windelband's Hist, of Phil. 4. 2. 31. 5. 
» Ch. Sc. vs. Pan. p. 18. cf. S. and H. p. 114. 

* Cf. S. and H. pp. 204, 250, 281. 



40 The Origin of Christian Science, 

Spinoza's, whose pantheism, as Windelband ob- 
serves, is ''complete and unreserved'\ ' It is set 
forth in a form absolute and without a ''saving 
clause". Spinoza teaches the immanence of God 
in nature so positively as hardly to suggest his 
transcendence. The Neoplatonists teach the tran- 
scendence of God, which is a modification or lim- 
itation of their pantheism. I am not able to find 
the transcendence of God very clearly set forth in 
Christian Science, but it is implied in the doctrine 
of emanation which is in both Christian Science 
and Neoplatonism. This doctrine is that the 
world or nature spiritually or ideally conceived, 
proceeded from the first principle or God, as light 
radiates or emanates from the sun. This is the 
famous illustration of Plotinus and is used often 
by Mrs. Eddy. 

Plotinus says : "The One is all things ;" ' 
"intellect is real existence and contains all real ex- 
istences in itself, not after a spatial fashion but 
as though they were its own self, and it were one 
with them.'* ' By intellect Plotinus means the 
creator or what Mrs. Eddy means by mind as a 
synonym for God. Proclus says: "The fabri- 
cator of the universe * * * contains in him- 
self the forms of all things." ' To a follower of 
Plato "forms of all things" means realities of all 
things. If all things are in God in this meta- 



1 Hist, of Phil. p. 409. 

* 5. 2. 1. Tr. by Puller. 

2 5. 9. 6. Tr. by Fuller. 
*Nat. of Evil. 3. (p. 144.) 



Theology. 41 

physical sense, then all things are divine or are 
God, just as Mrs. Eddy reasons: "If Mind is 
within and without all things, then all is Mind." ' 
Mind is one of Mrs. Eddy's ''Divine Synonyms", 
we are to remember. Again Proclus says: The 
Demiurgus ''is intelligibles themselves." ' The 
Demiurgus is the creator and by "intelligibles" 
Proclus means the forms or realities of things. 
Plotinus and Proclus then identify God with na- 
ture, when nature is spiritually or ideally con- 
ceived, just as Mrs. Eddy does. This is the 
thought of Proclus when he says that the Demiur- 
gus "will contain (contains) the paradigms of the 
things that are generated". ^ Paradigms are pat- 
terns, forms or ideal essences. Proclus, speak- 
ing of an eternal being, considered as cause and of 
its eternal effect and distinguishing these from 
all temporal causes and effects, says that "the 
maker and that which is made are one". * This 
is an identification of God and nature as Mrs. 
Eddy understands God and nature in the language 
referred to. "Spiritual nature" is to Mrs. Eddy 
nature conceived as eternal, not as temporal and 
changing. This may be difficult for us to under- 
stand but we must attempt to understand it if we 
would know what Christian Science really is. It 
seems that we can understand this much at any 
rate, that whether or not Mrs. Eddy and the Neo- 



* S. and H. p. 257. 
2 On Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 302.) 
•On Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 225.) 
*0n Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 236.) 



42 The Origin of Christian Science. 

platonists know where they are going, it is cer- 
tain that they are on the same way, to the same 
place, Mrs. Eddy being in the rear by fifteen cen- 
turies. 

And now consider that the pantheism of both 
Mrs. Eddy and the Neoplatonists is modified by 
their doctrine of "emanation". This feature or 
doctrine is more manifest in Neoplatonism than 
in Christian Science, but it is prominent in the 
latter also, as is clearly shown by the language of 
Mrs. Eddy. One may feel as he studies Christian 
Science that, while its pantheism is not so abso- 
lute and paralyzing as is Spinoza's, it is neverthe- 
less colored with the same dark hopelessness that 
is found in his, and lacks in proportion the qual- 
ity of bright hopefulness in which the Neoplaton- 
ists, by virtue of their doctrine of transcendence, 
excel Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy. Mrs. Eddy stands 
rather between them. This is said not of Mrs. 
Eddy and Christian Scientists personally, whose 
cork-and-kite-like optimism is perhaps their most 
valuable asset. It is said of the special feature 
of pantheism that is found in Christian Science. 
And this leads me to repeat what was said in the 
previous chapter, that the Neoplatonism of Chris- 
tian Science has a Spinozaistic stamp. This fact 
should be noted as it will help us to discern the 
anti-Christian, pantheistic and atheistic character 
of Christian Science. The pantheism of the Neo- 
platonists, Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy is atheism. 

Consider now Mrs. Eddy's statements : "In- 
finite Mind is the creator, and creation is the in- 



Theology. 43 

finite image or idea emanating from this 
Mind" ; ' ''creation consists of the unfolding of 
spiritual ideas and their identities, which are em- 
braced in the infinite Mind and forever reflected 

* * * the highest ideas are the sons and 
daughters of God" ; ' ''From the infinite elements 
of the one Mind emanate all forms, colors and 
qualities, and these are mental both primarily and 
secondarily" ; ' "Omnipotent and infinite Mind 
made all and includes all" ; * "As a drop of water 
is one with the ocean, a ray of light one with the 
sun, even so God and man. Father and son, are 
one in being" ; ^ "Like a ray of light which comes 
from the sun, man, the outcome of God, reflects 
God".' In these declarations of doctrines there are 
many points of interest, some of which cannot be 
taken up now but will be later. At present con- 
sider that they contain these three important 
propositions : 

1. That creation is an emanation from the 
creator. 

2. That the relation of creation to the cre- 
ator is illustrated by the relation of a ray of light 
to the sun. 

3. That, while creation emanates from the 
creator, it at the same time abides in him. 

These thoughts are in a peculiar sense Neo- 

1 8. and H. p. 256. 
^ S. and H. p. 502f. 
» 8. and H. p. 512. 

* S. and H. p. 206. 
»/S^. and H. p. 361. 
" S. and H. p. 250. 



44 The Origin of Christian Science, 

platonic. Plotinus, explaining how intellect, the 
second hypostasis, being or nature after the first, 
came into existence, says: "We call it an image 
because it is begotten of the One and preserves 
much of the nature of the One, and is very like the 
One, as light is like the sun" ; ' *'We are to think 
of it as a radiance proceeding from the One * * * 
just as the light about and surrounding the sun is 
eternally generated from it.'" This is an ex- 
planation of the first step in creation. It is a 
radiation or emanation from the first principle, 
as light proceeds from the sun. Explaining the 
second step in creation in the same way, he says : 
^'Intellect being like the One follows the example 
of the One and pours forth a mighty power. This 
power is a particular form of itself, as was the 
case with that which the principle prior to intel- 
lect poured forth." ' In like manner he explains 
all creation, saying : 'There is then a procession 
from the origin of all things to the last and least 
of them." ' 

These quotations teach as clearly as do those 
from Mrs. Eddy that creation is to be considered 
as an emanation from the creator and that the re- 
lation of creation to the creator is illustrated by 
the radiation of light from the sun. So it is es- 
tablished that the first and second propositions 
designated above are true also in Neoplatonism. 



15. 1. 7. Tr. by Fuller. 

»5. 1. 6. Tr. by Fuller. 

»5. 2. 1. Tr. by Fuller. 

*5. 2. 2. Tr. by Fuller, 



Theology, 45 

That the third proposition is also true in Neo- 
platonism is evident from certain quotations from 
Proclus already given, but I add this other from 
Plotinus: *'A11 things are in their origin inas- 
much as they may all be traced back to their 
source." ' 

So it is clear that Christian Science and Neo- 
platonism view creation as both a proceeding from 
and an abiding in the creator, and use the sun and 
its rays as a means of explaining their concep- 
tions. It is perhaps the best possible illustration 
for them, inasmuch as the rays of light proceed 
from the sun and at the same time retain also the 
essential quality of the sun, namely, light. When 
we are thinking of quality, not quantity, as in this 
case, to say that the sun is in the ray is the same 
as to say the ray is in the sun. The importance 
of this illustration in aiding us to understand 
both systems should be emphasized. Windeloand, 
seeing how important it is in Neoplatonism, says : 
'To express this relation (between God and the 
universe) in figurative form, Plotinus employs 
the analogy of light, — an analogy which in turn 
has also an influence in determining his concep- 
tion." ' 

I wish at this point to remind the reader once 
for all that I am not leading him into subtleties. 
It is Mrs. Eddy and her masters that are doing it, 
whom we are undertaking to follow in order to see 



5. 2. 1. Tr. by Fuller. 
Hist, of Phil. 2. 2. 20. 7. 



46 The Origin of Christian Science. 

how she is following them. If they talk of things 
that are beyond the power of the human mind to 
fathom, as they certainly do, still we must try to 
follow them and it may be that when they do this 
we can the more easily see her dependence on 
them. We are not concerned with the truth or 
the falsity of these speculations, but with the ques- 
tion whether or not Mrs. Eddy's system is in es- 
sential principles the same as that of the Neo- 
platonists. In other words, we are proving that 
Mrs. Eddy in claiming to be the recipient of a di- 
vine revelation and the discoverer of Christian 
Science is a philosophic plagiarist. 

Having carefully studied what has been said 
as to the pantheism of Christian Science, it will 
not be very difficult, I hope, for us now to see 
that the god of Christian Science is an impersonal 
god. The language of Mrs. Eddy, already cited, 
in which she claims that '^ Principle" is the best 
term for God is sufficient in itself to justify this 
conclusion. Principle is not person and person 
is not principle. Principle is a quality of a per- 
son, or a rule for human action, or an abstract or 
primary truth. I am not able to think of it as 
being anything else. And to say that God is any one 
or all of these is to reduce him to limits much nar- 
rower than to say that he is a person. That God 
may be thought of as in some way limited is a 
cause of great concern to Mrs. Eddy, and to her 
infinity, or unlimitedness, is simply the sum total 
of all reality. She says: "Allness is the meas- 
ure of the infinite, and nothing less can express 



Theology. 47 

God." ' It is clear that in such a system of pan- 
theism, ''Principle" is the best name for God, and 
God is not to be thought of as a person. 

This subject gave Mrs. Eddy much trouble. 
She hardly knows what to do with it. There are 
repeated efforts to free her theology from what 
she felt is a very damaging defect. Accordingly, 
when we put together her various statements, 
contradictions are manifest. But plain state- 
ments, as well as her many synonyms and number- 
less references to God, together with the place 
which he occupies in her metaphysical system, 
compel us to think of what she calls God as some- 
thing impersonal. Mrs. Eddy can refer to her 
god by means of the pronoun, "she," as well as the 
pronoun, *'he," ' and for her one is really as good 
as the other, but the impersonal pronoun "it" 
would be the best. Her god is an ''it.'' See that 
she does really so speak of it. 

Once when a friend, who was a stranger to 
my little girl, eighteen months old, who did not 
yet know how to distinguish between the pro- 
nouns, came to visit us, the inquisitive child 
stepped around and quietly asked, "Papa, ivhat is 
it?'' It was the child's innocence that made it 
funny. Had she known better it would have been 
impudence. When we look at the young baby in 
the mother's arms shall we ask "What is his 
name?" But we do not know whether the baby 
is a boy or a girl. So we may ask the proud 



^ &. and H. p. 336. 

' Cf. S. and H. pp. 256 and 331f. 



48 The Origin of Christian Science, 

mother ''What do you call it?'' and get into worse 
trouble. The mother feels that her babe is some- 
thing infinitely more than an it. Her child is a 
human being, a person, and is not to be thought 
of as a thing either finite or infinite. 

Let us first examine Mrs. Eddy's statements. 
"Person is formed after the manner of mortal 
man, so far as he can conceive of personality. 
Limitless personality is inconceivable. * * * 
Of God as a person, human reason, imagination 
and revelation give us no knowledge;"' "God is 
Love ; and Love is principle, not person ;" ' "The 
world believes in many persons ; but if God is per- 
sonal, there is but one person, because there is but 
one God." ' In the first edition of Science and 
Health the personality of God is more boldly de- 
nied than in the one of 1911. * 

Again she says: "If the term personality, 
as applied to God, means infinite personality, then 
God is infinite person, — in the sense of infinite 
personality, but not in the lower sense." " This 
language is very interesting. If God is to be 
thought of as personal, it is not a person that he 
is, but limitless personality, which Mrs. Eddy says 
is inconceivable. If God is personal then there 
is but one person and accordingly a man is not a 
person. The essence of Mrs. Eddy's statements 
is that if we think of God as person we must not 



1 No and Yes p. 28f. 
2JVo and Yes p. 28. 
' /8f. and H. p. 517. 
* Cf. pp. 20 and 227. 
» /Sf. and H. p. 116. 



Theology, 49 

think of a man as a person, and if we think of a 
man as a person we must not think of God as per- 
son; for to think of God as person is to think of 
him as a person and this would spoil all her the- 
ology. So if w^e ascribe personality to God, we 
must be careful not to let the word have any of the 
meaning which it does have when English speak- 
ing people use it. What is the trouble with Mrs. 
Eddy? Why is it that she can make such a ridicu- 
lous statement as that God is not a person but that 
he is personality? Why does she have to "split 
hairs" in this fashion? She is in a ''strait betwixt 
two." When necessity is the mother of inven- 
tion the offspring may be something quite unnat- 
ural. She cannot say that God is a person be- 
cause she does not believe this, and because such 
a statement would tear out the keystone of her 
metaphysical system and cause the whole massive 
structure to fall in a pile. On the other hand it 
would not be wise for Mrs. Eddy to tell us plainly 
that she is going to rob us of our beautiful con- 
ception of God as a being of will, forethought, de- 
sign, moral qualities and moral relations. But 
this is what she is attempting to do nevertheless, 
and in order to perform this operation pleasantly 
upon us she works the trick of extracting all the 
meaning out of the word, and then assures us, 
with the assumption of great wisdom and with 
amazing calmness, "God is in the higher sense 
personal, yes, God is infinite personality." 

Why is it impossible for Mrs. Eddy to say 
that God is a person? Because God is infinite 



50 The Origin of Christian Science. 

and infinity is to her the same as ''allness", as we 
have already quoted her as teaching ; and to think 
of a person is to think of a being that is in some 
sense separate and apart from other beings or ex- 
istences. A person or one person imphes other 
persons or other beings. Then to think of God as 
a person is to think of him as an individual stand- 
ing apart from other individuals or realities, and 
this we must not do, as God is identical with all 
realities. 

Mrs. Eddy must dispose of God's indi- 
viduality just as she does of his personality. 
"My child, let me make known to you a truth 
kept secret since the foundation of the world, but 
now imparted through a revelation of divine 
science. It is this greatly elevating truth, God is 
not an individual but he is individuality." ' I 
would not trouble others or myself with these sub- 
tleties, concerning which we may be confident that 
neither Mrs. Eddy nor any one else can do more 
than speculate, were it not that we have under- 
taken to follow her where she follows others, 
though she and they all may fall into the ditch. 

Look again at Mrs. Eddy's language: "The 
individuality of Spirit, or the infinite, is unknown, 
and thus a knowledge of it is left either to human 
conjecture or to the revelation of divine Science;"" 
"God is individual and personal in a scientific 
sense, but not in any anthropomorphic sense." ' 
There are many points of interest in these two 



* Cf. S. and H. p. 330. ^ 8. and H. p. 330. 

» S. and H. p. 336f. 



Theology. 51 

sentences, but I note only four, namely, that Mrs. 
Eddy refers to spirit or God as ''it" ; that she un- 
derstands that personality implies individuality; 
that God's individuality, as his personality, is in 
no sense like man's individuality, and that she 
claims that her teaching concerning the individ- 
uality of God is a "revelation of divine Science." 
God is not, she affirms, an individual "in any an- 
thropomorphic sense." 

No one would claim that God is an individual in 
every human respect, that is, both physically and 
spiritually. But the individuality of God, like his 
personality, if conceived at all, must be conceived 
as in some sense anthropomorphic. The follow- 
ing quotation from Mrs. Eddy shows this, of 
which not only the thought but the language 
should be considered with special care. "The 
term individuality is also open to objections, be- 
cause an individual may be one of a series, one of 
many, as an individual man, an individual horse; 
whereas God is One, — not one of a series, but one 
alone and without an equal." ' Mrs. Eddy has 
been very sly in covering up her tracks but she 
made a fatal blunder when she wrote that sen- 
tence down. It alone, when its full force is felt, 
is enough to stamp Mrs. Eddy's doctrine of God 
as Neoplatonic. Plotinus says : "It is not proper 
that it (the One) should be a certain one of those 
things to which it is prior ;" ' "It is not some one 
of all things but is prior to all things ;" ^ "The One 

^ 8. and H. p. 117. 
*5. 3. 11. 



52 The Origin of Christian Science, 

will not suffer itself to be numbered with another 
nor indeed to be numbered at all."' The mean- 
ing of Plotinus is that the "one" is not to be 
thought of as one of a class or series. To call it 
"one" in this sense, that is, as a man or a horse is 
one, would be to number it and this would not be 
proper, he thinks. Here is a striking and exact 
parallel in thought. Mrs. Eddy was born sixteen 
hundred years too late to make the revelation to 
us that she claims to do. Proclus follows Ploti- 
nus. He says: 'The One is simply the first;"' 
"The One of it (Providence or God) is not like an 
individual one." * Proclus beat Mrs. Eddy to this 
idea by 1400 years. These Neoplatonists were 
followed by Spinoza, who expresses the thought 
very clearly and in language which Mrs. Eddy^s 
language resembles, thus: "A thing can not be 
called one or single, unless there be afterwards 
another thing conceived, which (as has been said) 
agrees with it;" "He who calls God one or single 
has no true idea of God and speaks of him very 
improperly;" "We do not conceive things under 
the category of numbers, unless they first have 
been reduced to a common genus." ' Spinoza, the 
world's greatest pantheist, following the Neopla- 
tonists, beat Mrs. Eddy to this idea by 200 years, 
and Mrs. Eddy comes along at this late date and 
says it is a revelation to her. I cannot believe that 



^ 5. 5. 4. 

=^ Theo. Ele. 100. 
8Prot;. 1. (p. 7f.) 
* All in Letter, 50. 



Theology. 53 

she is ignorant that this idea was written down by 
others. Her language is best explained on the 
ground that she got it in some way, in some writ- 
ten form, from these philosophers. I repeat, she 
made a great blunder in writing down that sen- 
tence and claiming that the idea came by divine 
revelation. 

I may close this point of our discussion by re- 
marking that whether or not Mrs. Eddy is right 
in supposing that God must not be considered in 
any sense as one of a series or class, that she her- 
self evidently is one of a series or class, namely, 
the class of pagan philosophers and pantheists 
who cannot think of God, or the first principle of 
all, as being in any sense limited, of whom the 
first and greatest in intellectual acumen was Plo- 
tinus, and the last if not the least is Mary Baker 
G. Eddy. 

Mrs. Eddy is set against anthropomorphism 
or the conception of God as having the form or 
nature of man. She thinks this error has done 
much harm. Now if anthropomorphism means 
that God has a body like man's and only this, then 
the doctrine would be bad. But no real thinker 
has taught that. Anthropomorphism, as the word 
suggests, is the doctrine that God has the likeness 
of man. It teaches that God is in some important 
respects like man. If God is like man in mind 
but not in body then we have an anthropomorphic 
conception of God. Since man is like God, being 
created in the image of God, as Mrs. Eddy pro- 



54 The Origin of Christian Science. 

fesses to believe, then God must be like man. If 
one is like the other, then the other is like the one. 
Men are sons of God as Mrs. Eddy allows. She 
also allows that the son is like the father. How 
illogical, how silly it is then to deny that the father 
is like the son. Again, since man, that is "im- 
mortal man'', is by Mrs. Eddy identified with God, 
why does she wage such a war against a man-like 
deity? I repeat, "it belongs to the system." To 
think of God as like man is to limit him, Mrs. 
Eddy imagines. God is infinite and infinity is 
allness. Mrs. Eddy, like some theologians, has 
gone mad over "infinity." The gracious father- 
hood of God is sacrificed on the altar of this little 
idol, "Infinity," the initial letter being capitalized 
for effect. Infinity is her little Dagon which she 
must prop up in his place lest he fall upon his face 
and be broken. 

What is infinity? It matters not for our 
purpose what it is, except that if it is anything, it 
is a soraewhat and not a ^ovaewho. We do not 
ask, who is infinity? for the question thus word- 
ed would not be intelligible. We could as well ask, 
who is what ? I beg pardon of the reader for this 
repetition, but I want to make it clear that when 
Mrs. Eddy uses the word God she is talking not 
about a person, but about a thing, that is, an idea. 

And now let us see how Mrs. Eddy deals with 
this subject. She says : "Human philosophy has 
made God manlike. Christian Science makes 
man Godlike. The first is error; the latter is 



Theology. 55 

truth;" ' "Error would fashion Deity in a manhke 
mold, while Truth is molding a Godlike man ;" ' 
"God is individual and personal in a scientific 
sense, but not in any anthropomorphic sense." ' 

I do not find such general denials as these of 
the anthropomorphic character of God by the Neo- 
platonists, but I find denials to him of many spe- 
cific human qualities, as we find in Christian 
Science, which I proceed to recount. And these 
are more valuable than general statements. But 
before doing so I give a sentence from Spinoza,] 
who, like Mrs. Eddy, is set against all anthropo- 
morphic conceptions of God. Like Mrs. Eddy's 
statements, it is general and sweeping. He says 
simply : God is "without any human qualities." * 
It is natural to ask, how could Spinoza, who identi- 
fies man with God, that is eternal man, corre- 
sponding to Mrs. Eddy's immortal man, affirm 
that God is wholly unlike man? It is, I repeat, 
on account of the system. God is infinite and 
must not be thought of in any sense as finite. 
Mrs. Eddy has his standpoint exactly. Both are 
pantheists. Both identify man with God. Both 
teach that God is unlike man in every respect, 
though man is the image and likeness of God, and 
do so for the same reason, namely, to make secure 
their idol. Infinity, and both follow the Neo- 
platonists. If Mrs. Eddy teaches elsewhere any- 



^ 8. and H. p. 269. 
^ No and Yes. p. 29. 
' 8. and H. p. 336f. 
* Letter, 34. 



56 The Origin of Christian Science. 

thing contrary to this, it does not prove that she 
does not teach this, which the quotations show 
that she does teach. It is not my business to har- 
monize her contradictions. Her followers may 
attempt that. But I am careful not to misrepre- 
sent her, however much she may misrepresent 
herself. 

And now we turn to the specific human qual- 
ities that are denied to God. 

The first in order relates to the character of 
the divine mind. 

Mrs. Eddy teaches that God is a being with- 
out will. In opposing and rejecting theism she 
says: "Reason and will are human, God is di- 
vine. In academics and religion, it is patent that 
will is capable of use and of abuse, of right and 
wrong action, while God is incapable of evil.*' ' 
I am aware that Mrs. Eddy says that will may 
designate a quality of the divine mind. She is 
forced to this confession since she finds the ex- 
pression ''will of God" in the Bible; but she ex- 
plains, however, that the will of God means *'the 
might and wisdom of God." ' Thus she would ex- 
tract all the meaning out of the will of God, as 
she does out of his personality. She will not let 
the word, when applied to God, mean what it 
means when English-speaking people and psychol- 
ogists use it. She makes it mean the same as 
knowing or understanding and robs it of its main 
use, which is to express purpose. So Mrs. Eddy 



* en. Sc. vs. Pan. p. 7. cf. S. and H. p. 111. 
^ S. and H. p. 597. 



Theology, 57 

can say: ''With God, knowledge is necessarily 
foreknowledge and foreknowledge and foreordina- 
tion must be one in an Infinite Being. What 
Deity foreknows, Deity must fore-ordain, else He 
is not omnipotent, and, like ourselves. He foresees 
events which are contrary to His creative will, yet 
which he cannot avert." ' For God then to or- 
dain, to decree, to purpose is the same as to know. 
The ground for this speculation is found in Pro- 
clus. He says: **It is not lawful for him (De- 
miurgus or Creator) to will some things and pro- 
duce others (contrary to his will) ; since will and 
productive energy are simultaneous in divine es- 
sences." ' When it is learned that the productive 
or creative energy in both Christian Science and 
Neoplatonism is intellect or understanding, as 
will be seen later, it will be clear that Mrs. Eddy 
reproduces the thought of Proclus. I find the 
doctrine stated more positively, however, in Spi- 
noza, who argues that if we should compare the 
divine intellect and will with the human intellect 
and will "there would be about as much corre- 
spondence between the two as there is between 
the Dog, the heavenly constellation, and a dog, an 
animal that barks"; and so he concludes that 
"neither intellect nor will appertains to God's na- 
ture." ' What he means is that we should not 
distinguish in the divine mind intellect and will; 
that in God they are one. But in the following 



^ Unity of Good. p. 22. 
^Noi. of Evil. 1. (p. 78.) 
^Eth. 1. 17. Note. 



58 The Origin of Christian Science. 

language from Spinoza we have not only the 
meaning of the foregoing but also a more striking 
parallel to Mrs. Eddy's position : "This seems to 
have been recognized by those who have asserted, 
that God's intellect, God's will, and God's power, 
are one and the same." ^ Spinoza knew that some 
before him identified God's will with his power or 
might and again resolved his power into his in- 
tellect. It is easy to see that to those, who regard 
only the mental as real, all power must be simply 
intellectual energy. Spinoza, it seems, refers to 
the Neoplatonists. Mrs. Eddy holds that "all 
might is divine Mind." ' Proclus says : "If be- 
ing willing to make his fabrications indissoluble, 
he (the Demiurgus or creator) does not possess 
the power of effecting this, we must separate his 
will from his power, which would be absurd." ' 

Mrs. Eddy denies to God such knowledge as 
is commonly ascribed to men. 

In connection with the above quotation from 
Spinoza and Proclus it should be recalled that in 
one of the quotations from Mrs. Eddy she denies 
"reason" to God. She does not mean by this term 
the highest kind of knowledge, which is under- 
standing or consciousness, for this she in many 
places ascribes to God. If she knows what she is 
saying, which I grant, she is distinguishing be- 
tween the "discursive reason", or that kind of hu- 
man knowledge which is obtained by a reasoning 



1 Eth. 1. 17, note. 

2 8. and H. p. 310. 

'On Tim. Bk. 5 (Vol. II. p. 346.) 



Theology. 59 

process, and the knowledge of God which is always 
immediate or intuitive, or is simply consciousness. 
In the quotation from Spinoza, just given, in 
which he says "intellect" does not appertain to 
God's nature, he is making this very point. He, 
too, holds that God's knowledge is always imme- 
diate or intuitive knowledge or consciousness. 
The foundation for this strange speculation — and 
one could hardly discover a finer specimen of spec- 
ulation — is found in the statement of Plotinus, 
that there arises from or pertains to the "good" 
"an intellect not such as we possess." ' 

I am here anticipating the discussion of Mrs. 
Eddy's psychology and need not now trace the 
comparison further. In dismissing the matter 
now I wish to note for the benefit of the reader 
that the way is being prepared by means of this 
kind of psychology for the teaching of the Neo- 
platonists, Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy, that God has 
no knowledge of deformity, discord or evil. 

Now since Mrs. Eddy denies so much knowl- 
edge to God we ask, why did she not deny all 
knowledge to him? Since she rejects an anthro- 
pomorphic God, how is it that she permits her god 
to have any kind of knowledge, since knowledge is 
a quality of human beings? Mrs. Eddy should 
have followed the Neoplatonists consistently to 
the end. Plotinus denies all knowledge to the one 
or the good. For knoweldge requires the act of 
discrimination or differentiation and in all knowl- 



^ 1. 8. 2. cf. 5. 3. 11; 5. 3. 13; 5. 6. 6. and 6. 9. 6. cf . Porphyry 
in Aux. 26; and Proclus in Prov. 1. (p. 4.) 



60 The Origin of Christian Science. 

edge there are two things, a cognizing subject and 
a cognized object. Now this is the recognition of 
multiplicity but unity can not know plurality. 
For the one to know anything is to become multi- 
plex and this is self-annihilation. By this meta- 
physical pole-vaulting we see how the one occupies 
a summit of existence higher than knowledge. ' 

Sublime logic this, that makes the first being 
of all an ignoramus ! It is splendid dialetical gym- 
nastics. It is a strange kind of "divine utterance" 
that would render the deity a dumheit. But this 
is inexorable logic if all human qualities are de- 
nied to God and if only unity is real and multi- 
plicity, which is imphed in knowledge, is unreal. 
It is interesting to see how Mrs. Eddy, blind or 
seeing, follows these philosophic idolaters, who 
work for us this sleight-of-mind performance, up 
to a certain point and then stops short. She is 
vaulting on the same pole with them but either 
can not or will not jump quite so high. In this 
feature of the entertainment she appears to be 
rather weak or timid. The Neoplatonists get 
further from the earth than does Mrs. Eddy. In 
other words, they are somewhat less materialistic 
than she is. In this instance Mrs. Eddy fears to 
loosen all the strings to her balloon. Mrs. Eddy 
was either not smart enough to see what the Neo- 
platonists saw or was too smart to break with her 
constituency. It may seem very pretty to say 
that God knows no such thing as sin, sickness and 



^ Cf. Plotinus 6. 9. 6. 



Theology. 61 

death. But who could endure her saying that 
God does not know anything? Still it ought to 
occur to anyone who thinks twice that not to know 
evil is not to know good; that not to know sin, 
sickness and death, is not to know goodness, health 
and life ; that not to know darkness is not to know 
light; that not to know "straight down" is not to 
know ''straight up" ; that not to know error is not 
to know truth; that not to know the negative is 
not to know the positive; that a knowledge that 
does not recognize opposites and contradictories 
is no knowledge at all. I repeat, Mrs. Eddy joins 
the Neoplatonists in presenting to us a dumb deity, 
though very naturally, she does not so plainly de- 
scribe her idol. 

Mrs. Eddy, like her masters, teaches that God 
exists in an active state only and never in a pas- 
sive state. It may be easily seen how this doctrine 
follows logically from their adoration of their idol, 
Infinity. Since their god is identical with "all- 
ness" there can be nothing outside of it to act upon 
it. So it is never acted upon but is ever active. 
We are in the habit of thinking of a person being 
the active agent and of a thing being the passive 
recipient, but these pantheists, as usual, demand 
that we reverse this mental process; and if we 
hesitate to walk backwards at their command 
they tell us politely that we are "dense", and some 
are so meek as to respond to this "word of the 
oracle" by falling down and worshipping, saying, 
"Behold, how wonderful is this divine wisdom. 
No man nor woman ever so spake before." It 



62 The Origin of Christian Science, 

should occur to them that, if they were so dull as 
to have believed error all their lives, maybe they 
are at it still, which very thing I am proving. 
And from henceforth, if they say, "never man or 
woman so spake," it is not an innocent but a wil- 
ful blindness that they are afflicted with. In- 
deed, some are about ready to believe that Chris- 
tian Scientists are the best illustration of the prov- 
erb that ''None are so blind as those that will not 
see." 

Having "preached" this little bit, if you 
please, I turn to the language of Mrs. Eddy. She 
says : "The divine Mind includes all action ;" ' 
God is "omni-action ;" ' "Immortal Mind is ever 
active;"' "God rests in action;"* "There is but 
one primal cause. Therefore there can be no ef- 
fect from any other cause." ° Plotinus holds that 
being and energy (or activity) are one ' and that 
energies and essences of intellect are the same. ' 
Proclus states the same principle more clearly 
when he says: "That which is in energy is per- 
fect," ' and "that which in capacity (or inactivity) 
* * * is imperfect." ' And Spinoza states 
the doctrine more clearly than does Mrs. Eddy, 
when he says : "It is as impossible for us to con- 



^ /Sf. and H. p. 187. 

* 8. and H. p. 587. 
» S. and H. p. 387. 

* /Sf. and H. p. 519. 

* /S. and H. p. 207. 
»Cf. 5. 9. 8. 

«0n Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 250.) 
"TJieo. Ele. 11. 



Theology. 63 

ceive God as not acting, as to conceive him as 
non-existing," ' and that God ''cannot be 
passive." ' That Mrs. Eddy simply reproduces 
the thought of the Neoplatonists and Spinoza 
is evident. 

From this metaphysical principle that God is 
ever active and never passive, several conclusions 
are logically drawn by the Neoplatonists and Mrs. 
Eddy, two of which I proceed to give, showing 
Mrs. Eddy's dependence on them. 

The first is that the divine being does not 
suffer. Distinguishing Christ from Jesus, who, 
she confesses, suffered, Mrs. Eddy says: "The 
eternal Christ, his spiritual selfhood, never suf- 
fered." ^ Plotinus says : "It (being or that 
which always is in contrast with anything that 
begins to be or has a temporal existence) suffers 
nothing." * Spinoza says : God is not "suscep- 
tible of passions." ' Some teachers of the Bible 
are found stating with a show of profoundness 
that the divine nature cannot suffer. They ought 
to learn that the Bible teaches no such thing but 
that pagan philosophy does, whence it came to 
Mrs. Eddy and to a few theologians also who in 
this matter are more under the sway of Plato 
than Christ. 

If God cannot suffer it must follow that he 
cannot have sympathy, that is, he cannot suffer 



^ Eth. 2. 3. Note. « Eth. 1. 15. Note. 

^Eth. 1. 15. Note. 

» /Sf. and H. p. 38. cf. p. 582. 

* 3. 7. 4. cf. Porphyry, Aux. 22. 



64 The Origin of Christian Science, 

with human beings who do suffer. Nearly every 
one is astonished when he first learns that Chris- 
tian Scientists teach that we should not sym- 
pathize with those that are in pain. No, the 
mother must not even kiss the bruised head of 
her boy nor say, ''My darling, mama knows it 
hurts." Do not condemn too severely such a 
mother ; she is working out Christian Science, she 
is consistent, she is metaphysical. "For to sym- 
pathize with the child is to recognize the existence 
of pain and this might lead to the inference that 
he has a material head in which pain is located, 
and this would spoil all our splendid theories, 
don't you see?'' Christian Science compels its 
devotees so to reason, for its mission is to ''make 
man God-like" and God cannot sympathize with 
those that suffer, for he cannot even recognize 
the existence of pain. So Mrs. Eddy says : "He 
could not destroy our woes totally if He possessed 
any knowledge of them. His sympathy is divine, 
not human." ' 

A sjrmpathy that arises without the recogni- 
tion even of the pain of the sufferer is no sjmi- 
pathy at all. A sympathy that has in it no ele- 
ment of suffering is not sympathy. Why then 
speak of divine sympathy when there is not a 
point of similarity in it to human sympathy? This 
is another of Mrs. Eddy's verbal tricks, as the 
following quotation reveals: "Sympathy with 
sin, sorrow, and sickness would dethrone God as 



^No and Yes. p. 39. 



Theology. 65 

Truth, for Truth has no sympathy for error." ' 
As the sentence stands it does not make sense. 
Let us change the verbal form so as to state boldly 
what the thought really is and read it thus : "Sym- 
pathy with one, who is in sin, sorrow or sickness, 
would dethrone God, for God, who is a being of 
truth, has no sympathy for one who is in error, 
sin, sorrow or sickness." It would dethrone God 
to sympathize or suffer with any one, for suffer- 
ing implies passivity or weakness, as the Neo- 
platonists and Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy reason. 
Spinoza defines sympathy as he does pity, namely, 
"pain accompanied by the idea of evil." ' He is 
following Plotinus who classes pity with "vices, 
envies, jealousies," ' etc., in short with all those 
passions that arise on account of the body. To 
Spinoza the "idea of evil" is a false notion, as it is 
to Mrs. Eddy; and to Plotinus the body is a non- 
entity, as it is to Mrs. Eddy. They all are "mak- 
ing time" on the same track, but Mrs. Eddy is far 
in the rear. And notwithstanding her slow gait 
she can receive neither sympathy nor pity from 
her god, nor can she obtain forgiveness for her 
false boast that she is leading in the race, for her 
god does not know any of these unfortunate things. 
The second inference is that God does not 
answer prayer and the only benefit of prayer is 
what may be termed its reflex influence. Mrs. 
Eddy says : "The mere habit of pleading with the 



^ No and Yes. p. 40. 

*Eth. 3. Definitions of the Emotions, 18, and Explanation. 

» 1. 1. 10. 



66 The Origin of Christian Science. 

divine Mind as one pleads with a human being, 
perpetuates the belief in God as humanly circum- 
scribed, — an error which impedes spiritual 
growth ;" ' *'God is not influenced by man ;" ' 
"Prayer cannot change the Science of being, but 
it tends to bring us into harmony with it ;" ' "Do 
we expect to change perfection?'"' By this kind 
of reasoning prayer is not prayer but simply medi- 
tation. Again we have the use of an English 
word with all its meaning extracted. Mrs. Eddy 
should say simply that she rejects prayer and 
substitutes for it meditation. Consider that the 
perfection she is thinking of is not the perfection 
of the divine character or of a personal God, but 
the perfection which she attributes to the uni- 
verse. She cannot think of God as we think of a 
great and good man whose very perfection and 
permanency of character and whose moral worth 
are revealed in his yielding to the cry of the weak 
and needy. Mrs. Eddy's divine perfection is noth- 
ing but the order and harmony of the universe 
which she imagines is, has been and ever will be 
perfect. So to ask for what is not or will not be 
is to pray for what is supposed to be discord or 
evil, and as these cannot possibly be, prayer is a 
waste of breath. Do not forget that Mrs. Eddy 
is a pantheist. Her god is something impersonal. 
She says also of praise: "God is not moved by 



1 jS'. and H. p. 2. 
» 8. and H. p. 7. 
' S. and H. p. 2. 
* 8. and H. p. 2. cf. p. 3. 



Theology. 67 

the breath of praise to do more than he has al- 
ready done." ' 

Thus with one rude stroke, but with a great 
flourish of philosophy and rhetoric, this would-be 
originator of a new religion would make prayer 
and praise, the heart of all worship and the spring 
of all piety, ridiculous and impossible except in 
the ignorant and superstitious. What man with 
sense will stand up to praise a being or a thing 
that is indifferent or bow down to ask for what he 
knows he cannot by virtue of the asking obtain? 
Here the sarcasm as well as the logic of Henry 
Ward Beecher is to the point. **I cannot say my 
prayers to the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omni- 
present, any more than I could to a proposition in 
Euclid. You might as well tell me that three 
angles make a triangle, 'Now worship !' " ' 

In nothing more than in the matter we are 
now considering is the anti-Christian character of 
Christian Science revealed. From these sentences 
alone one may see that it is pure and simple infi- 
delity. 

But we are concerned only secondarily with 
the truth or falsity of Mrs. Eddy's doctrine and 
primarily with her claim that she discovered it 
inside the Bible or received it as a direct revela- 
tion from God. Everybody who knows enough to 
talk on the subject, knows that this metaphysical 
vagary is not in the Bible ; and the other question 
is settled for us when we discover that it is a spec- 



^ 8. and H. p. 2. cf. p. 12. 

'^ A Treasury of Illustration, p. 241. 



68 The Origin of Christian Science, 

ulation of the Neoplatonists and Spinoza. So let 
us hear them. Proclus says: "A conversion to 
the whole imparts salvation to everything" and 
"to this conversion prayer is of the greatest util- 
ity." ' What he means by "conversion to the 
whole" is coming into unity with the universal 
order or bringing oneself by the power of right 
thinking into a condition of harmony with the 
universe. This is "salvation," he says. This 
may seem to the reader a strange meaning for the 
word "salvation." But it means with Proclus 
just what it means with Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy, 
namely, a correct understanding of things, all 
things, the universe. ' This then is the nature and 
end of prayer; meditation or contemplation con- 
tinued until our minds are enlightened sufficiently 
to see the harmony of universal nature. Spinoza 
says: "Nor do I deny that prayer is extremely 
useful to us. For my understanding is too small 
to determine all the means, whereby God leads 
men to the love of Himself, that is, to salvation. 
So far is my opinion from being hurtful, that it 
offers to those, who are not taken up with preju- 
dices and childish superstitions, the only means 
for arriving at the highest stage of blessedness." ' 
Spinoza, like Mrs. Eddy, identifies our love of God 
with understanding God or truth, as I will show 
later. I will also show that to Proclus and Spi- 
noza salvation or the highest blessedness is noth- 



^On Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 176 and p. 178.) 

•Later this matter will be taken up. But now cf. S. and H. 

* Letter 34. [p. 39. 



Theology. 69 

ing else than intellectual knowledge or perfect un- 
derstanding. But the reader may be able already 
to grasp this; at any rate he can see for himself 
that Spinoza affirms that prayer is ''extremely 
useful to us'' in that it leads us to love God, and 
that it is the ''only means for arriving at the high- 
est stage of blessedness." He could not teach 
that God answers our prayers and gives us for 
the asking a blessing (such hope as this he brands, 
it seems, as "prejudices and childish supersti- 
tions"), for God is without "any human qualities" 
and "cannot be passive", that is, affected by any- 
thing. Spinosa thinks of God as something imper- 
sonal, as Mrs. Eddy does. He cannot then be 
changed, for to change this kind of perfection is 
to render it imperfect. It would turn perfection 
into imperfection. Hear Mrs. Eddy once more: 
"Prayer can neither change God nor bring His 
designs into mortal modes; but it can and does 
change our modes and our false sense of Life, 
Love, Truth, uplifting us to Him." ' It would be 
difficult to find a more perfect parallel than we 
here discern between Christian Science and Neo- 
platonism. 

I may sum up most of what has been said con- 
cerning the non-personality of the god of Mrs. 
Eddy and the Neoplatonists by saying simply that 
they present to us an indifferent deity. He de- 
sires nothing, he is displeased with nothing ; for if 
he desired anything he would lack something and 



^No and Yes. p. 49. 



70 The Origin of Christian Science. 

be thereby imperfect, and if he were displeased 
with anything he would be affected from a power 
without his own being and would not be infinite 
and omnipotent. They understand divine perfec- 
tion and infinity in a way that renders the deity 
absolutely indifferent. So Plotinus can say : **The 
good itself is without desire," ^ and "the life of the 
gods and of divine and happy men * * * is a 
life unaccompanied with human pleasures." "" 
And Spinoza can say: "Neither the honest man 
nor the thief can cause God any pleasure or dis- 
pleasure," * and "it cannot be said that God de- 
sires anything of any man, or that anything is 
displeasing or pleasing to Him: all these are hu- 
man qualities and have no place in God." * Mrs. 
Eddy teaches that to God there is no evil. From 
this it must follow that to God there is nothing 
good, and so Plotinus reasons : "To the one noth- 
ing is good, and, therefore neither is the wish for 
anything good to it." ' Mrs. Eddy shrinks from 
stating her doctrine so boldly and honestly. But 
that this is her doctrine can be seen from the 
quotations already given. 

To give point to much that has just been 
said and to put it so its force will be 
felt I will say that Mrs. Eddy's deity is in- 
capable of love. This may seem contrary to 
fact since one of Mrs. Eddy's synonyms for God 



^ 3. 8. 11. cf. 6. 9. 6. 

^ 6. 9. 11. 

^Letter 36. cf. Letter 32. 

^Letter 36. 

" 6. 9. 6. 



Theology, 71 

is love. ' According to Mrs. Eddy's idea of love, 
since she follows Spinoza and the Neoplatonists 
in identifying it with the highest kind of know- 
ing or with understanding, as will be proved, we 
may say that God loves. That is, we may say 
that God loves when loves does not mean love. 
But English-speaking people and psychologists 
mean by unselfish, holy and divine love, a desire 
to benefit its object. It is an affection. But Mrs. 
Eddy's god would be imperfect if he had desire. 
For if he desires to have what he now has not, 
either he lacks something good, or he wants some- 
thing bad and in either case he becomes imperfect. 
And if he desires to give what he has not already 
bestowed, then he has hitherto failed to impart 
what is good or he now wants to inflict evil on his 
creatures and this likewise renders him imperfect. 
Again, if Mrs. Eddy's god has an affection, that is, 
if he were affected by anything he would be finite 
and no god at all. So her Dagon, Infinity, is love- 
less, and is incapable of affection, for it is lifeless. 
When she calls it *'Love" and ''Life" she is doing 
just what all idolaters do in putting into their gods 
human qualities, just what Mrs. Eddy says we 
should not do. A principle, even though we may 
call it love, does not love. It is a person only that 
can love and does love. If we were dependent 
upon her mere words we would not know when 
to believe her. But since we have an understand- 
ing of her principles we know when to believe her 



» Cf. 8. and H. pp. 115 and 465. 



72 The Origin of Christian Science, 

words and when not. In spite of all the props, 
poor Dagon falls prostrate and his head is broken 
off. Oh ye Philistines, gather ye together in 
Ashdod and consider how to piece together again 
your dismembered divinity. 

Before concluding this chapter we recall Mrs. 
Eddy's fear that principle, the best name for her 
deity, may seem cold and distant. So it does, and 
her denial does not change the fact. What she 
means may be expressed thus : ''My child, do not 
fear this iceberg, it may seem cold and unsym- 
pathetic, but it is not. Draw near to it. Come 
into its embrace. At first it may chill you. But 
abide there for a time and when the temperature 
of your body is brought into harmony with it, 
there will be no disagreeable sensation at all." 
That is quite true. When one is frozen stiff he is 
apt to be without pain or feeling of any kind. 

Finally these words of Beecher are again to 
the point : **I beheve in God and never for a mo- 
ment have I faltered in believing in a personal 
God, as distinguished from a Pantheistic God, 
whether it is the coarser Pantheism of material- 
ism, believing that the material universe is God, 
or the more subtle view of Matthew Arnold, who 
holds that God is nothing but a tendency in the 
universe — a something that is not me that tends 
towards righteousness. Well, I would rather 
chew thistledown all summer long than to work 
with any such idea as that.'* ' 



^ A Treasury of Illustration, p. 242. 



Theology. 73 

Christian Science is idealistic idolatry. It 
worships a man-made divinity though not em- 
bodied in material form. A god that is invented 
by the human mind is one degree better than a 
god that is formed by the human hand, but that is 
all. 



CHAPTER III. 

COSMOLOGY. 

Cosmology is theory as to the world, and by 
world is meant the entire universe. 

Naturally we begin this discussion with Mrs. 
Eddy's teaching as to matter. The two doctrines 
most pronounced in Christian Science are those 
relative to God and to matter. We have smooth 
sailing after we get the bearings that her theories 
on these subjects furnish us with. 

It hardly needs to be stated that Mrs. Eddy 
teaches the unreality of matter. No idea is more 
baldly thrust at us and more doggedly reiterated. 
The divine mind and its ideas only are real; all 
else is unreal. She says: "All that really ex- 
ists is the divine Mind and its idea." ' Recall 
what was said as to Mrs. Eddy's doctrine of ema- 
nation. All reality is related to the divine mind 
as light is related to the sun. Matter is to God 
as darkness is to light. Do not forget this illus- 
tration. No other language throws so much light 
on Neoplatonism and Christian Science. Dark- 
ness is the negation or absence of light. Matter 
accordingly is the absence of or opposite of God 
or reality. It is simply non-being or in other 
words it is nothing. The least acquaintance with 



^8. and H. p. 151. cf. p. 71. 



Cosmology. 75 

Christian Science enables us to see that this is 
Mrs. Eddy's position. She says : ''Spirit I called 
the reality ; and matter the unreality" ; ' "Nothing 
possesses reality or existence except the divine 
Mind and His ideas" ; ' ''Matter and its claims of 
sin, sickness, and death are contrary to God, and 
can not emanate from Him" ; ^ "The realm of the 
real is Spirit. The unlikeness of Spirit is matter 
and the opposite of the real is not divine" ; * "Mat- 
ter is Spirit's opposite" ; ' "If matter, so-called, is 
substance, then Spirit, matter's unlikeness, must 
be shadow; and shadow cannot produce sub- 
stance". ^ Hundreds of quotations of a like kind 
could be given but these are sufficient to show 
what Mrs. Eddy's theories as to matter are. 

The Neoplatonists have exactly the same 
theories. Students of Neoplatonism will under- 
stand that they taught that any given object has 
two qualifications, or consists of two elements, 
substance and shape, or matter and form. Plo- 
tinus says: "Everything is composed of matter 
and form." ' The word, form, with him, as is 
well known, means just what the word, idea, 
means with Mrs. Eddy. 

Recall Plato's "eternal world of ideas" or 
paradigms as contrasted with the world of things. 



^ Retros. and Intros. p. 40. 

2 S. and H. p. 331. 

» S. and H. p. 273. 

* 8. and H. p. 277. 

" 8. and H. p. viii. 

" 8. and H. p. 257. cf. Retros. and Intros. p. 39f. 

^2. 4. 6. Tr. by Fuller. 



76 The Origin of Christian Science, 

That world of ideas contributes the forms to the 
material things of this world of sense. The form 
or idea they regarded as real and eternal, the mat- 
ter or substance as temporal and unreal. This is 
contrary to our common way of thinking of them 
but is the basis for Mrs. Eddy's way of thinking 
of them which she confesses is contrary to our 
common conception. Recall her statement: 
**From the infinite elements of the one Mind ema- 
nate all form, color, and quality and quantity, and 
these are mental, both primarily and secondar- 
ily." ' That is, Mrs. Eddy believes in the reality 
of material things in so far as their forms are con- 
cerned. She is a thorough-going and consistent 
idealist and cannot allow reality in anything ex- 
cept what is mental. On this point of the unreal- 
ity of matter the parallel of the two systems is 
perfect. 

That matter is to be considered as the op- 
posite or negation of the good, God, form, the 
ideal or the real is evident from this quotation 
from Plotinus: *'It is correct then to speak of 
matter both as having no qualities and as being 
evil. For it is not called evil because it has qual- 
ities but rather because it has not, lest otherwise 
it were evil from being form and not from being 
the nature opposite to form." ' Here is a parallel 
brought to light that will be taken up later, name- 
ly, that the two systems identify matter and evil, 
since both these are opposite to the good. Dis- 



^ 8. and H. p. 512. 

" 1. 8. 10. Tr. by Fuller, cf. 1. 8. 7. 



Cosmology. 77 

miss this theory for the present and notice the 
point that matter is here described by Plotinus as 
"being the nature opposite to form," that is, op- 
posite to idea, reahty, God or good. The Chris- 
tian Science shoe, in size and shape, fits exactly 
the Neoplatonic track. 

In the following sentence Plotinus conceives 
of matter as shadow or as darkness. *'At this 
point she (the soul) already has hold of matter, 
seeing what she does not see, just as we talk about 
^seeing the dark.' " ' 

Mrs. Eddy performs nicely for us. She is 
stepping accurately and gracefully in the tracks 
of Plotinus. Her skill, though secretly acquired, 
evinces the best of training. 

It is appropriate to consider in this connec- 
tion Mrs. Eddy's application of the doctrine of the 
unreality of matter. 

It is hardly necessary to say that Mrs. Eddy 
reasons that since matter is unreal, the human 
body is unreal and therefore sickness is unreal. 
Accordingly it is useless to take medicine. If 
there is anything new in Christian Science this is 
it. But notice, it is only an application of the 
principle and not the principle that can be said 
to be anything novel. And we have seen that Mrs. 
Eddy must have known that P. P. Quimby made 
this application of the principle. The principle is 
as old as Plato and even older. The most ardent 
friends of Mrs. Eddy would hardly claim that 



* 1. 8. 4. Tr. by Fuller. 



78 The Origin of Christian Science, 

such an application of this principle is a mark of 
genius. She is entitled to all the honor that is 
due her for this and all the dishonor that is due 
her for refusing to apply the principle in other 
practical cases that logically demand it. 

Mrs. Eddy makes an application of it to the 
Christian ordinance of the Lord's Supper, which 
she very naturally rejects. ' Since our business 
is to get away as far as possible from matter or 
darkness, the opposite of spirit or light, then we 
should discard all material emblems. This is 
good logic if we grant her premise. 

But Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was a Neo- 
platonist rather than anything else, rejected the 
Lord's Supper evidently for the same reason. He 
was, as is well known, a Unitarian minister of the 
Gospel for several years, but renounced that voca- 
tion when he found that he could not any longer 
conscientiously administer this ordinance of the 
church. ' His philosophy now had the right of 
way and his Christianity was side-tracked. It 
may be said to the credit of this great thinker that 
his conscience was too sensitive to truth and honor 
to permit him to propagate his philosophic prin- 
ciples in the livery of Christian terms. It is good 
and beautiful to be spiritual, but it is not wise, 
however philosophic it is, to be so spiritual that 
we are nothing else. It may be a sublime ex- 
perience to glide in a flying machine in thin air 
far above the earth, but one does not possess men- 



^ Cf. 1^0 and Yes. p. 43. 

'Cf. New International Encyclopedia. Article, Emerson. 



Cosmology, 79 

tal poise who is so carried away with the exhila- 
ration of the sensation as to imagine that he will 
never need to set foot on the ground again. A 
spirituality that makes indiscriminate and whole- 
sale war upon the body is a spirituality that is 
pagan and not Christian. The Bible does no such 
thing as this. 

Of course Mrs. Eddy is against the resurrec- 
tion of the body, as will be seen later. For the 
soul to re-enter the body is for it to come again 
into its opposite. It is light clothed with or hid- 
den in darkness. Christ's ascension was a dis- 
carding and an abandoning of the "mortal coil." 
Matter is a negation or limitation of the spirit. 
In proportion as one escapes from the body he be- 
comes free. To get away from it entirely is to be 
where all is light and where there is no darkness 
at all. It was impossible therefore for Mrs. Eddy 
to believe in or desire the resurrection of the body. 
Some of her followers when she died did not seem 
to understand this and declared that they expected 
her resurrection. But the reappearance of Mrs. 
Eddy in the flesh, in finiteness, in unreality, in 
shadow, in falsity, and darkness would have 
spoiled all her teaching. In this case certainly 
"the last error would be worse than the first." 

It was the contrary with Jesus Christ. He 
taught that death is a reality which he could con- 
quer and demonstrated the truth of his words by 
his death and resurrection. Mrs. Eddy taught 
that death is an unreality that could be avoided 



80 The Origin of Christian Science. 

and demonstrated the falsity of her words by 
dying and staying dead. Jesus Christ died be- 
cause he chose to. Mrs. Eddy died because she 
could not help it. Her disciples said that she was, 
during the time of her fatal illness, "in error". 
It would be a greater error for her to return to 
materiality and unreality, to darkness and finite- 
ness. No, no! you fond disciples; you should be 
more philosophic. Since it would be so great a 
calamity to return to this "mortal coil", why is it 
an error to be shuffling it off? 

But one wonders why Mrs. Eddy did not con- 
tinue the application of this principle of the un- 
reality of matter. Why did she not work it out 
completely and consistently? She makes war on 
error, sin, sickness, and death because matter is 
unreal. But she has no right to stop here. She 
has started on a certain road. She must travel it 
to the end or go back. She has no right to stop, 
look wise and say, "See what progress I have 
made." No, we say, "Go on, or confess that you 
are in a bad way." 

If matter is darkness and spirit is light then 
the less materiality we have the more spirituality 
we have ; the more we reduce the corporeality, the 
more we increase the mentality; the leaner the 
body, the fatter the soul. ' 

This is invincible logic. Who does not know 
that the less darkness there is the more hght there 
is ? If then I am hunting for a pious man there is 



^ Cf. Retros. and Intros. p. 99. 



Cosmology. 81 

an infallible rule to guide me ; he is anyone whose 
bones are ready to protrude. 

If there is ridicule in this language I remind 
the reader that it is sound reasoning also. It was 
just this supposedly deep but impractical meta- 
physics that produced asceticism in the church. 
And every student of church history and of dog- 
matics knows that it was not Christian theology 
but Platonic philosophy that created this carica- 
ture of life which was a mark of the Dark Ages 
and which still lingers in the institutions of mon- 
asteries and convents. It is the necessary result 
of the notion that mind and body are related as 
reality and unreality, as light and darkness. 

But Mrs. Eddy does not make this logical ap- 
plication of her principles. On the contrary she 
claims that she can transform a "crow bait" into 
a race horse ; ^ and Christian Scientists are rea- 
sonably fat and sleek. They know well how to 
take care of the physical man, treating it as 
something very precious. In this they go con- 
trary to their principles but make a very pleasing 
plea for popular patronage. In this Mrs. Eddy 
is like Bishop Berkeley, who taught that physical 
objects do not exist but that we should act just as 
though they did. ' Why bother us then with all 
these subtleties if we are to go on living the same 
kind of life that we have been living, except in cer- 
tain arbitrary reformations instituted by Mrs. 



* Cf. S. and H. pp. 245 ff and 261. 

' Cf. Principles of Human Knowledge. Paragraphs 34-36. 



82 The Origin of Christian Science, 

Eddy on account of her antipathy to medicine and 
orthodoxy? But we are not yet through with 
Mrs. Eddy's inconsistencies. 

Matter is unreal and is darkness, she vehe- 
mently contends, but she makes financial charges 
for dispensing the light of her health-giving meta- 
physics. That is, she demands so much unreality 
and darkness in exchange for so much reality and 
light. It is stated that her estate after her death 
was appraised at over two millions of dollars. 
She certainly knew how to chase the shadows of 
darkness and to get possession of them; and how 
also to will them to her church, believing, it would 
seem, that the church needed them, Mrs. Eddy 
was a financial success. She beat all other 
religious reformers in making money. Jesus of 
Nazareth was not in her class. He died poor; 
she died in the arms of luxury, that is, in che en- 
joyment of the shadow of darkness and unreality. 
Oh ! consistency, thou art indeed a jewel ; but alas ! 
how the sow tramples upon thee ! How sweet the 
darkness was to this angel of light! 

The great American trio of religious grafters, 
Joseph Smith, Alexander Dowie and Mary Baker 
G. Eddy each, had a genius for getting a corner 
on revelation and getting in the shekels. And 
the greatest of these is Mary Baker G. Eddy. 

Again, since matter is unreal, Mrs. Eddy ar- 
gues, we should take no medicine. For both the 
pill and the swallowing machine are unreal. The 
acting subject and the thing acted upon both, you 



Cosmology. 83 

see, are unreal. Therefore, to do this thing is to 
give ourselves up to unreality and to forsake real- 
ity. That is, it is turning away from the light of 
day and going into the shades of night. It is not 
good logic, she thinks, for one unreality to con- 
sume another smaller unreality. 

Very well, but she should reason the same 
way about swallowing any other piece of material- 
ity. Mrs. Eddy should have continued the appli- 
cation of her logic and advised us thus : "My lit- 
tle children, bread is unreal and your body is un- 
real. It is not necessary for one unreality to 
chew up and swallow down another unreality or 
for one shadow to consume another shadow. 
The whole physical performance is a delusion of 
the flesh and the very thought of it jars us out of 
harmony with the universe of reality. So from 
henceforth eat nothing. The spirit should domi- 
nate the body, not the body the spirit." But who 
ever heard of a Christian Scientist fasting? They 
have to swallow down as much unreality of this 
kind as the rest of us do, and seem to enjoy it 
equally as well. It has never been claimed for 
the founder of Christian Science, so far as I am 
aware, that she failed to pay her respects daily 
to the materiality of food. 

Finally, consider the psychology involved in 
the rejection of the Lord's Supper. It is using 
the physical to suggest the spiritual. It is using 
error to teach truth. With flourishing rhetoric 
and empty profoundness, Mrs. Eddy says: "If 
we array thought in mortal vestures, it must lose 



S4 The Origin of Christian Science, 

its immortal nature."' The great question of 
psychology herein involved will be taken up later. 
Here it is desired only to give a passing notice to 
the subject, and to remark that if this kind of rea- 
soning is correct then all teaching by object- 
lessons is wrong, for it is imparting ideas by 
means of the visual sense, that is, it is imparting 
the spiritual by means of the physical, or stating 
truth by means of error, as Mrs. Eddy argues. ' 

But do Christian Scientists reject the princi- 
ple of teaching by object-lessons? Not when it 
is inconvenient. For example, Mrs. Eddy has 
permitted her pictures to be scattered everywhere. 
Plotinus scorned such a thing and was consistent. 
When one wanted him to sit for his likeness to be 
taken, he declined, giving for himself and all his 
followers a satisfactory reason : "As if (said he) 
it was not sufficient to bear this image (the body) 
with which nature has surrounded us, you think 
that a more lasting image (bodily likeness) of this 
image should be left as a work worthy to be in- 
spected."* What splendid philosophy! How 
beautifully consistent! Why Mrs. Eddy did not 
stand firm with her master on the same spiritual 
pinnacle but fell off and down into materiality 
in permitting her image to be reproduced may be 
explained in two ways. It may have been on ac- 
count of feminine vanity, a materiality which was 
not fully overcome by her spirituality. The bet- 



1 S. and H. p. 260. 

=» Cf. /Sf. and H. p. 126. 

* Select Works of Plotinus. p. XLIV. 



Cosmology. 85 

ter explanation is, however, that pictures in our 
time may become a lucrative commercial com- 
modity. Plotinus, I judge, was not so tempted. 
What's the harm anyway in swapping one shadow 
for another, especially when one is willing to give 
more than he gets of the article ? There is nothing, 
you see, in either parting with or receiving what 
is unreal. A very convenient philosophy Christian 
Science is ! What consistency in inconsistency ! 

The digression that we have indulged in is jus- 
tifiable on the ground that it brings into clear 
view the radical character of Christian Science 
principles and Mrs. Eddy's arbitrary and limited 
application of them. Christian Scientists, as is 
well known, live changed lives both for the better 
and for the worse. But the reforms that they 
practice are not half so radical and revolutionary 
as the system really demands. It demands with 
as inexorable logic as can fetter human thought 
that they eat nothing, see nothing, hear nothing, 
feel nothing, in short that they be rid of their 
bodies immediately and with the swiftest possible 
dispatch. Mrs. Eddy has carried her principles 
into absurdities from some of which common 
sense restrained the Neoplatonists. And her 
common sense, too, permitted her to follow her 
principles into only a few of the follies into which 
they lead those who do not know when to slip the 
halter from their heads. Practical Christian 
Scientists keep their hands on the buckle and re- 
fuse to go where it is unpleasant or dangerous. 
I take the liberty to suggest that they make much 



86 The Origin of Christian Science, 

of the time-serving saying of their half-brother, 
Ralph Waldo Emerson, namely, that "with con- 
sistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." * 
To make it clear how foreign to Christianity 
is the relation of soul and body, which we have 
been reviewing, let the student consider that the 
conception of the body as the prison-house of the 
soul is not found in the Bible at all. It is a pagan 
notion. Preachers who proclaim this vagary 
ought to "sit up and take notice'*. The Bible 
teaches the redemption and resurrection of the 
body and our eternal existence in it; not escape 
from it. 

The testing of a principle is the proving or 
disproving of its truth and value. If the princi- 
ple of the unreality of matter cannot be applied 
to one department of practical life as well as an- 
other, then it is not true and should be rejected. 
We may say of Mrs. Eddy, as was humorously 
said of Bishop Berkeley, that when she says there 
is no matter, it's no matter what she says. The 
material world is 'Weal as long as it lasts", as Bob 
Burdette wittily puts it. 

In an idealistic system, a system that con- 
fines reality to the divine mind and its ideas, it 
is natural and necessary that mind be considered 
as the creator of the world. And so Mrs. Eddy 
and the Neoplatonists teach. 

Two suppositons which will be discussed at 
a proper time should for the present be kept in 



^ In Essay, Self-Control. 



Cosmology. 87 

mind : that both Mrs. Eddy and the Neoplatonists 
teach that there is one infinite mind; and that 
when they speak of creation they are not thinking 
of what has a beginnmg in time and an existence 
of Hmited duration but of what is eternal. If the 
student will lay hold of this thought he will easily 
understand and appreciate the parallel which, 
though traced with brevity here, is far reaching 
in importance. 

Mrs. Eddy says: "The mythical human 
theories of creation, anciently classified as the 
higher criticism, sprang from cultured scholars in 
Rome and in Greece, but they afforded no founda- 
tion for accurate views of creation by the divine 
mind." ' We are not concerned with this unin- 
telligible reference to "higher criticism" and need 
not be confused by it. But consider other quota- 
tions from her to the same effect : "Infinite Mind 
is the creator, and creation is the infinite image or 
idea emanating from this Mind ;" ' "Divine Mind is 
the only cause or Principle of existence;" ' "The uni- 
verse reflects God. There is but one creator and one 
creation. This creation consists of the unfolding 
of spiritual ideas and their identities, which are 
embraced in the infinite Mind and forever reflect- 
ed ;" * "God creates all forms of reality. His 
thoughts are spiritual realities." ' We find the 
Neoplatonists affirming the same doctrine with 



* 8. and H. p. 255. Cf. Retros. and Intros. p. 94. 
2 -Sf. and H. p. 256f. cf. p. 143. 

» S. and H. p. 262. cf. p. 207. 

* S. and H. p. 502f. 
^ 8. and H. p. 513. 



88 The Origin of Christian Science. 

the same positiveness. Plotinus praising the 
nous, which is infinite mind or intellect, says: 
"Is it not evident, that being intellect, it intellect- 
ually perceives in reahty and gives subsistence to 
beings ?" ' The thought is that infinite mind by 
thinking brings beings into existence. Again, 
Plotinus says: '^Intellectual perception is simul- 
taneous with existence." ' The idea is that to 
think a thing is to create it, which is clearly true 
for one who holds that thoughts are the only real- 
ities. Proclus states the position in plainer lan- 
guage than does Plotinus. He says: "The 
causes of all things are in intellect;" ' "Intellect is 
the maker of it" (the world) ; * "His intellections 
(the thoughts or ideas of Demiurgus, the creator) 
are creations." " The Neoplatonists followed 
Plato in calling the infinite mind or intellect when 
thought of as the creator, the Demiurgus. " 

No comment is necessary. The language of 
Proclus is as clear as Mrs. Eddy's in ascribing 
creation to mind as the producing cause. 

In dismissing this phase of the subject, it will 
give force to our contention to notice that Spinoza, 
pantheist, atheist and infidel, held to the same 
dogma. He says: "The intellect of God, in so 
far as it is conceived to constitute God's essence, 
is, in reality, the cause of things, both of their es- 



1 5. 9. 5. cf. 5. 9. 4. 

»5. 6. 6. 

»0n Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 225.) 

*0n Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. 237.) 

•^On Tim. Bk. 5. (Vol. II. p. 354.) 

• Cf. Plotinus. 5. 1. 8. 



Cosmology. 89 

sence and of their existence." ' Mrs. Eddy, since 
she identifies mind with God, regards it as consti- 
tuting the essence of God. Intellectus with Spi- 
noza corresponds to nous with the Neoplatonists 
and these two words of the Latin and Greek cor- 
respond to Mrs. Eddy's divine Mind. 

Mrs. Eddy teaches that creation is eternal. 
In this conception two doctrines intimately related 
are involved, namely, that what God creates is 
eternal, that is, it is without beginning and with- 
out end, and that the act of creation also is eter- 
nal, that is, it is timeless. It will be seen, there- 
fore, that what Mrs. Eddy means by creation is 
something wholly unlike what is commonly meant 
by the term. The word naturally suggests the 
bringing into existence of something that did not 
exist before, and accordingly both the created 
thing and the creating act are marked with tem- 
poral limitations. Mrs. Eddy's unnatural use of 
this word, as of others that we have noted and will 
yet notice, is the result of her bondage to the Neo- 
platonists who treat the subject of creation as she 
does. First, as to the eternity of the world. 

Mrs. Eddy says: "God created all through 
Mind and made all perfect and eternal ;" ' "All 
creations of spirit are eternal;" ' "God's thoughts 
are perfect and eternal." * Do not forget that 
Mrs. Eddy considers God's thoughts to be crea- 



"^Eth. 1. 17. Note. cf. 1. 33. Note 2. 
^ Retros. and Intros. p. 94. 
» 8. and H. p. 287. 
* 8. and H. p. 286. 



90 The Origin of Christian Science, 

tions. Recall the quotation from Mrs. Eddy- 
above given that "infinite Mind is the creator and 
creation is the infinite image or idea emanating 
from this Mind" and connect with it this other: 
"The infinite never began nor will it ever end." ^ 
Again, note the language of Mrs. Eddy: "God, 
without the image and likeness of Himself, would 
be a non-entity, or Mind inexpressed." ' So cre- 
ation co-exists with God and is eternal, as he is 
eternal, ' for in pantheism nature is identical with 
God. It is the phenomenon, or God manifested, 
as Mrs. Eddy expressly states. * 

Why then speak of the creation of the world 
at all, since it is as improper as it would be to 
speak of God being created? It is a "trick of the 
trade." Mrs. Eddy must follow her masters. In 
commenting on Genesis 1 : 1 she says expressly 
that we are not to understand that anything was 
really begun, that "the infinite has no beginning" 
and that the infinite is both "God and man includ- 
ing the universe"; that creation therefore means 
simply the "unfolding of Spiritual ideas and their 
identities." ' In others words, the creation spoken 
of in Genesis is no creation at all. It is not even 
anything like creation. It is education; it is the 
awakening of intelligence in man. It is man ex- 
ercising the power of understanding and con- 
sciousness. Mrs. Eddy says: "Whatever seems 
to be a new creation is but the discovery of some 



^S. and H. p. 245. * Cf. S. and H. p. 114. 

8. and H. p. 303. cf. 306. « B. and H. p. 502f. 
Cf. S. and H. pp. 267 and 336. 



Cosmology. 91 

distant idea of Truth." ' In creation, as described 
in Genesis we are not to understand that God was 
doing anything but that man was doing a lot of 
powerful thinking. The student of philosophy 
will discern that Mrs. Eddy in this interpretation 
or rather caricature of the record of creation 
found in Genesis, is reproducing Hegel, who under 
the influence of Neoplatonism attempted to apply 
the principle of evolution to Genesis according to 
which the sin of our first parents becomes a "fall 
up" rather than a ''fall down." The first sin was 
simply the springing up of ''consciousness" in 
man by which he is differentiated from the brute.' 

Plotinus says : "This world, therefore, never 
began, nor will ever cease to be." ^ Proclus says : 
"From all that has been said, therefore, it is easy 
to infer, that the Demiurgus produces eternally; 
that the world is perpetual, according to a perpe- 
tuity which is extended through the whole of 
time." * Proclus explains and develops the 
thought of Plato that the Demiurgus in making 
the world "looked to an eternal paradigm." ' That 
is, the creator made the world according to an eter- 
nal pattern or plan. 

Here we must renew our knowledge of Plato 
or form a slight acquaintance with him. This 
great thinker spoke often of two worlds. One is 
the world of paradigms or patterns, of forms or 



» S. and H. p. 263. cf. p. 504. 

' Cf. his Philosophy of History. Part 3, Sec. 3, Chap. 2. 

8 2, 9. 7. 

*6n Tivi. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 308.) 

•On Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 276. cf. p. 222 ff.) 



92 The Origin of Christian Science, 

ideas. The other is the world of material things. 
The former is often referred to by present day 
speakers as "Plato's eternal world of ideas." For 
in this world no past nor future is known. But 
the world of things is subject to time. Again, the 
world of ideas was regarded as unchanging and 
perfect and the world of things as changing and 
imperfect. Ideas have no beginning and no end; 
things originate and vanish. Consequently the 
world of ideas was considered real and the world 
of things unreal. However contrary to common 
thinking this is, it was Plato's way of thinking t-o 
which, when touched up with a lively colour added 
by the Neoplatonists, Mrs. Eddy conforms per- 
fectly. 

To the conception of Plato the Neoplatonists, 
who used his philosophy for religious purposes, 
added the dotcrine that these ideas of the eternal 
world should be considered as ideas or thoughts of 
God. ' So this world of ideas, which becomes the 
one world of reality, can very naturally and easily 
be considered as a world created by the divine 
mind or brought into being by divine thinking, 
since it is simply a world of thoughts or ideas. 
And since the divine mind eternally thinks, this 
world is eternally created. Since God is identical 
with mind and mind by its very nature is ever 
active or is ever thinking, then this world is co- 
existent with God. This is Neoplatonism and it 
is Christian Science. 



^ Cf. Windelband's Hist, of Phil. 2. 2. 19. 4. 



Cosmology. 93 

Mrs. Eddy thus contrasts these two worlds as 
Plato and his followers did: "Eternal things 
(verities) are God's thoughts as they exist in the 
spiritual realm of the real. Temporal things are 
the thoughts of mortals and are the unreal, being 
the opposite of the real or the spiritual and eter- 
nal ;" ' ''Things spiritual and eternal are substan- 
tial. Things material and temporal are insub- 
stantial." ' With such a conception of the real 
world, it is necessary that the Neoplatonists and 
Mrs. Eddy consider it eternal. 

A quotation from Spinoza, when carefully 
considered, will sharpen the point to the parallel 
that we are now tracing. He says : "All the de- 
crees of God have been ratified from all eternity 
by God himself. If it were otherwise, God would 
be convicted of imperfection or change. But in 
eternity there is no such thing as when, before or 
after; hence it follows solely from the perfection 
of God, that God never can decree, or never could 
have decreed anything but what is ; that God did 
not exist before his decrees and would not exist 
without them." ' Spinoza means by the decrees 
of God simply his ideas or thoughts ; for he identi- 
fies the will of God with the intellect of God. * 
Spinoza, hke the Neoplatonists and Mrs. Eddy, 
considers God's thoughts as creations and assigns 
them to the sphere of eternity, where "there is no 
such thing as when, before or after." Proclus 
fourteen centuries and Spinoza two centuries ago 



1 S. and H. p. 337. =^ B. and H. p. 335. cf. pp. 264 and 269. 
» Eth. 1. 33. Note 2. * Cf. Eth. 1. 17. Note. 



94 The Origin of Christian Science, 

stated Mrs. Eddy's position very accurately for 
her when they taught that God's thoughts, which 
are to be considered as creations, are eternal. 

The eternity of the world requires as has been 
said that the act also by which it was or is created 
be considered eternal. This idea has no doubt 
been suggested already to the reader, for it is im- 
plied in certain of the quotations from Mrs. Eddy 
and also in the one from Spinoza just given. 

The striking parallel that we now make is that 
the Neoplatonists and Mrs. Eddy deny to the cre- 
ator deliberation and purpose. They must do so, 
as such mental acts as these would require cre- 
ation to be subject to time, which it is not. A 
creation subject to time is to them unreal. We 
are considering the real creation. 

The fact that Mrs. Eddy denies purpose to 
God has already been established. Here we are 
considering the relation of the fact to creation. 
Mrs. Eddy cannot conceive of God as meditating 
over what he will do, as planning or purposing to 
do anything. For these acts imply the lapse of 
time and the divine mind is not subject to time. 
It is eternal. What God creates is co-existent 
with himself. All this is in the sentences from 
her already cited in the treatment of this topic. 
Recall also the one in which Mrs. Eddy identifies 
in the divine being foreordination, foreknowledge 
and knowledge. ' In her god they are one and are 
not to be distinguished as different mental activi- 



^Cf. Unity of Good. p. 22. 



Cosmology, 95 

ties. In explaining creation as described in Gen- 
esis Mrs. Eddy refuses to let ''evening" and 
"morning" designate time. ' She thinks ''Chron- 
ological data" should not be thought of; that 
* 'time-tables" of birth and death shorten life ; ' 
that "time is a mortal thought," ' that is, that the 
sense of time is error, not truth. Accordingly, the 
divine act of creation must be eternal. Therefore, 
Mrs. Eddy cannot think of God as creating any- 
thing now or at any given time, though her meta- 
physical acumen was not sharp enough to enable 
her to see that if we cannot think of an eternal 
creation as being at any time in progress we can- 
not think of it as being at any time finished. * 

The conception that we are now dealing with 
is far-reaching in its importance not only as ex- 
plaining the character of God but also as explain- 
ing the character of creation ; that is, the creation 
of the real world. We do well to pause here until 
we feel the force of this conception. If God is 
without purpose then there is no design in nature. 
This sweeping inference must follow from the as- 
sumptions that the world is without temporal re- 
lations and that its maker is principle, not a per- 
son, and that the agency by which it is created is 
mind only or intellect without will. This matter 
will become plainer when we come to study the 
psychology of Christian Science. At present con- 



' Cf. ;Sf. and H. p. 504. 
' Cf. 8. and H. p. 246. 
» 8. and H. p. 598. 
* Cf. 8. and H. p. 206. 



96 The Origin of Christian Science, 

sider that the view that the world is created by the 
divine mind, in which there is only understand- 
ing or consciousness ' and to which time is un- 
known, since the ideas of the divine mind are 
eternal, ' necessarily involves the view that the 
creating act is eternal, that is, timeless. In all 
this Mrs. Eddy is logical and consistent. 

But the point of interest to us is that her mas- 
ters, the Neoplatonists, teach the same thing with 
the same logic and consistency. Their language 
should be carefully considered. Plotinus, explain- 
ing how intellect produced the world, says: **If 
we suppose it to operate by inquiry, its energy 
could not be spontaneous and truly its own ; but its 
essence would be similar to that of an artificer, 
who does not derive from himself that which he 
produces, but provides it as something adventi- 
tious by learning and inquiry ;" * ''If, likewise, it 
is necessary that intellect should be the maker of 
this universe, it will not intellectually perceive 
things in that which does not yet exist, in order 
that it may produce it." ' Proclus, indulging in 
the same speculation, says : "When we say of the 
Demiurgus himself, that he consults, that he en- 
ergizes dianoetically (that is, discursively), and 
that he makes these things prior to those, we re- 
linquish the truth of things ;" ' ''It is not lawful 
for him (the Demiurgus) to look to natures pos- 



1 iS. and H. p. 250. 

2 S. and H. p. 88. 
»3. 2. 2. 

* 5. 9. 5. cf. 5. 9. 7. 

^OnTim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 293.) 



Cosmology. 97 

terior to himself;"' ''The Demiurgus of wholes 
looking to himself and always abiding in his own 
accustomed manner, produces the whole world, 
totally and at once collectively, and with eternal- 
ly invariable sameness; for he does not make 
(create things) at one time, and at another not, 
lest he should depart from eternity." ' Spinoza 
as usual expresses the thought better for us. Con- 
demning the views of some he says : "These lat- 
ter persons seem to set up something beyond God, 
which does not depend on God, but which God in 
acting looks to as an exemplar, or which he aims 
at as a definite goal." ' 

The reader will excuse me for insisting on his 
discerning the far-reaching import of these quota- 
tions from the Neoplatonists and Spinoza. It is 
hardly possible to overestimate their bearing on 
the eternal character of the world, the timeless 
process of the creative act and the nature of the 
divine mind which necessitates such a process or 
is thereby revealed. 

Hear Mrs. Eddy on this subject once more: 
"For God to know is to be ; that is, what He knows 
must truly and eternally exist ;" * "He who is all 
understands all. He can have no knowledge or 
inference but his own consciousness ;" ' "What 
Deity foreknows Deity must foreordain, else he is 



^On Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 364.) cf. Bk. 4. (Vol. II. p. 257.) 

»0n Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 237.) 

*Eth. 1. 33. Note 2. cf. Eth. 1. Appendix. 

*No and Yes. p. 24. 

'^No and Yes. p. 25. 



98 The Origin of Christian Science, 

not omnipotent and like ourselves, He foresees 
events which are contrary to His creative will." ^ 
Her statement that "What Deity foreknows Deity 
must foreordain," is equal to the statement that 
what God knows he must create. 

In the above language Mrs. Eddy expresses 
briefly what is amplified and illustrated in the 
foregoing sentences from Plotinus, Proclus and 
Spinoza. The thought is this: God knows noth- 
ing as going to happen ; what he knows is; he did 
not choose in making the world between two or 
more plans; he does not deliberate; he forms no 
picture of what could be but is not ; he has no imag- 
ination ; he works toward no ideal ; he has no pur- 
pose, for the realization of a purpose would ren- 
der him subject to time, that is imperfect, or it 
would involve the knowledge of something that 
does not yet exist and such knowledge would be 
other than consciousness which only is divine 
knowledge. When men make things they are 
subject to all these mental conditions but we must 
have no anthropomorphic conception of God. Mrs. 
Eddy says: "Material senses and human con- 
ceptions would translate spiritual ideas into ma- 
terial beliefs, and would say that an anthropomor- 
phic God, instead of infinite Principle * * * 
is the father of the rain," ' etc. 

Now hear again Mrs. Eddy's masters. Plo- 
tinus considers it absurd to suppose that the 
Demiurgus or the creative cause should make the 



^ Vnity of Good. p. 22. 
2 8. and H. p. 257. 



Cosmology. 99 

world by means of the imagination and asks de- 
risively : "How did it make it, through arrogance 
and audacity and in short through imagination" ? ' 
Spinoza combats the view of some who "without 
knowing it attribute imagination to God" ' and 
contends that God "cannot form fictitious hypoth- 
eses." ' With this faith Spinoza courageously un- 
dertakes "to overthrow this doctrine of final cause 
(in nature) utterly." * Such is the way of ideal- 
istic pantheists, ancient and modern. 

There are a number of conclusions that fol- 
low from the doctrine of the eternal creation of 
the world. They are of interest to us not merely 
because they are logically deduced from it but es- 
pecially because they are advocated by both the 
Neoplatonists and Mrs. Eddy and therefore argue 
the more strongly her dependence on them. 

The first is that the world is necessarily cre- 
ated. There could be no other world and the one 
that is had to be. This necessity is that by which 
a thinking mind must have its object of thought, 
that by which a definite cause must have its defi- 
nite effect, that by which a thing possesses its es- 
sential quality or qualities, that by which one cor- 
relative involves the other. Mrs. Eddy says: 
''What Deity foreknoivs Deity must foreordain." " 
It is not a temporal but a logical foreknowing that 
Mrs. Eddy has in mind and any disciple of hers 



1 2. 9. 11. 

^ Eth. 1. Appendix. 

' Imp. of the Und. p. 19. 

*Eth. 1. Appendix. 

' Unity of Good. p. 22. 



100 The Origin of Christian Science, 

has the privilege of explaining if possible what 
such contradictory terms may mean. But notice 
that she says God must create what he foreknows. 
Since he foreknows all or ''understands alV ' then 
he had to create all that is. And since he has al- 
ready created all that ever will be or can be, he 
had to create the world and had to create it as it 
is. Mrs. Eddy's god is subject to this little word, 
''must." Mrs. Eddy puts her god, who she says 
is omnipotent, under compulsion. He is subject 
to the law of necessity. 

Again Mrs. Eddy says: "What He knows 
must truly and eternally exist;"'' ''Under divine 
Providence there can be no accidents ;" ^ "If God, 
who is Life, were parted for a moment from his 
reflection, man, during that moment there would 
be no divinity reflected. The Ego would be un- 
expressed, and the Father would be childless, — no 
Father." * So the world which is God's complete 
reflection exists as necessarily as God does. 

Plotinus says: "This world was produced, 
not from any certain reasoning power concluding 
that it should be made, but from a necessity that 
a secondary nature should inseparably attend that 
which is primary and the examplar;"' "The 
world was formed by the same kind of necessity 
as the shadow (is formed) by any substance ob- 
structing the light, and was not constructed by 



» Cf. No and Yes. p. 25. 
^No and Yes. p. 24. 
» S. and H. p. 424. 
* 8. and H. p. 306. cf. 303. 
"3. 2. 2. 



Cosmology. 101 

the counsel of reason (that is, discursive reason), 
but from a more excellent essence, naturally gen- 
erating an offspring similar to itself." ' Proclus 
has the same thought and attributes it to Plato. ' 

But here again Spinoza's language helps to 
clinch our contention. He says: "All that is in 
the power of God (and with Spinoza poiver of 
God is synonymous with intellect of God) neces- 
sarily is ;" ^ "Things could not have been brought 
into being by God in any manner or in any order 
different from that which has in fact obtained." * 
Spinoza too puts his deity under necessity. He, 
two hundred years ago, argued that for ^od to 
know is for him to create, as does Mrs. Eddy. The 
Neoplatonism of Christian Science betrays the 
finishing touches of Spinoza. The world's pro- 
foundest pantheist and subtlest infidel indulged 
in the same kind of ''revelation/' that the author 
of Christian Science enjoyed. 

Another conclusion that follows from the 
eternity of the world, as also from other theories 
of Mrs. Eddy and her masters, is that the world is 
perfect. Nature considered in its entirety is 
without defect. Since the world is God's idea or 
the object of his thinking and since God's think- 
ing is perfect, his idea or his thought is perfect. 
In other words the world is perfect. Since the 
noumenon and the phenomena constitute God, and 



1 3. 2. 3. 

^Cf. On Tim. Bk 3. (Vol. I. p. 439.) 
*Eth. 2. 3. Proof. 
*Eth. 1. 33. 



102 The Origin of Christian Science. 

God is perfect, the phenomena or the world must 
be perfect. With Mrs. Eddy and the Neoplaton- 
ists the real, the eternal, and the perfect are the 
same. Imperfection is simply the absence of 
reality. It may be that the student has already 
noticed in the quotations from Mrs. Eddy how 
she in speaking of the world often applies to it 
both the adjectives, perfect and eternal. This is 
natural, inasmuch as in her conception what is 
real is both perfect and eternal and so one ad- 
jective implies the other. All this is revealed in 
the following sentence: "All the real is eternal. 
Perfection underlies reality. Without perfection 
nothing is wholly real." ' 

As to the perfection of the world Mrs. Eddy 
says: "God created all through Mind and made 
all perfect and eternal;" ' "God's thoughts are per- 
fect and eternal ;" ^ "Whatever is valueless or 
baneful. He did not make, — hence its unreality." * 

Turn now to the Neoplatonists. Plotinus 
says: "If we apply the ears of our intellect to 
the world we shall, perhaps, hear it thus address- 
ing us : There is no doubt but I was produced by 
divinity, from whence I am formed perfect * * * 
entirely sufficient to myself, and destitute of 
nothing ;' " ' "The universe, however, was never 
once a child so as to be imperfect." ' Spinoza 



1 /8f. and H. p. 353. 

^ Retros. and Intros. p. 94. 

3 S. and H. p. 286. 

* S. and H. p. 525. 

» 3. 2. 3. 

•2. 9. 17. 



Cosmology. 103 

says: ^'Things have been brought into being by- 
God in the highest perfection, inasmuch as they 
have necessarily followed from a most perfect 
nature * * * fQ^. jf things had been brought 
into being in any other way, we should have to as- 
sign to God a nature different from that which we 
are bound to attribute to him from the considera- 
tion of an absolutely perfect being." ' So he iden- 
tifies perfection and reality. ' It should be noted 
that the Neoplatonists, like Mrs. Eddy, argue the 
perfection of the world from the perfection of its 
creator. 

Related to the perfection of the world is the 
theory of the harmony of the universe. Mrs. 
Eddy and the Neoplatonists teach that when na- 
ture is considered as a whole there is no discord. 
The reader can readily see how this theory serves 
well Mrs. Eddy's contention about disease. It is 
disorder, and as all disorder, derangement or in- 
harmony is unreal or the absence of reality, dis- 
ease must be a non-entity. 

Mrs. Eddy says: "This Mind (divine mind) 
creates no element nor symbol of discord and de- 
cay;" ' 'The divine Principle and idea (which for 
Mrs. Eddy constitute the real universe) constitute 
spiritual harmony, — heaven and eternity. In the 
universe of Truth matter is unknown. No sup- 



^ Eth. 1. 33. Note 2. cf. Letter, 15. 
» Cf. Eth. 2. Definition, 6. 
» 8. and H. p. 503. 



104 The Orgin of Christian Science. 

position of error enters there ;" ' ^'Reality is spir- 
itual, harmonious, immutable, immortal, divine, 
eternal." ^ 

Plotinus speaking of the "intelligible world*', 
or of nature spiritually considered as Mrs. Eddy 
would phrase it, says: "Nothing preternatural 
is there." ' 

Proclus says: "To nature, indeed, consid- 
ered as a whole, nothing is preternatural ; because 
all natural productive powers are derived from it. 
But to nature which ranks as a part, one thing is 
according to, and another contrary to nature." * 
Spinoza writes to Oldenburg : "Each part of na- 
ture agrees with its whole, and is associated with 
the remaining parts. For as to the means where- 
by the parts are really associated, and each part 
agrees with its whole, I told you in my former let- 
ter that I am in ignorance. To answer such a ques- 
tion, we should have to know the whole of nature 
and its several parts ;'" "I do not attribute to nature 
either beauty or deformity, order or confusion." ' 

The student should be reminded that this 
theory of the absolute and present perfection of 
the world has its basis in Plato's doctrine that in 
the ivorld of ideas and paradigms, which is the 
world of realities, there is no defect nor evil, as 



^ 8. and H. p. 503. 

^ S. and H. p. 335. 

» 5. 9. 10. 

'Nature of Evil. 3. (p. 117.) 

^Letter, 15. 

^Letter, 15. 



Cosmology. 105 

Plotinus in a concise paragraph explains. ' As 
Mrs. Eddy and the Neoplatonists explain moral 
evil and physical evil, or natural defects, in the 
same way, namely, by denying their existence, 
and as this chapter is growing too long, I defer 
further discussion of this matter to the chapter 
on Ethics. 

At this point it is proper to speak of Mrs. 
Eddy's doctrine of the beauty of the world. To 
her the beautiful is the same as the perfect, and 
the eternal. To her beauty is the same as Plato's 
intellectual beauty. It is the beauty of a circle, 
not of the one that we see with our eyes, but of 
the one that is in our mind, which is a perfect cir- 
cle. It is the beauty of the geometrical truth that 
the three angles of a triangle make two right 
angles, which is true not of the triangular figures 
that we see but of the ideal ones. Mrs. Eddy 
says: "Beauty, as well as truth, is eternal; but 
the beauty of material things passes away, fading 
and fleeting as mortal belief ;" ' "The recipe for 
beauty is to have less illusion and more soul, to re- 
treat from the belief of pain or pleasure in the body 
into the unchanging calm and glorious freedom of 
spiritual harmony." ' It is clear from these sen- 
tences that to Mrs. Eddy what is really beautiful is 
eternal, and that it is the harmony which is spirit- 
ually or intellectually discerned, that is, it is per- 
fection. Proclus following Plato closely asserts 

^Cf. 5. 9. 10. 

2 /Sf. and H. p. 247. 

» 8. and H. p. 247f. 



106 The Origin of Christian Science, 

often in his commentary on Timaeus that the 
world is "most beautiful" because produced by 
the "Demiurgus, the best of causes". Proclus in- 
terprets Plato as meaning "intelligible beauty" 
which is the same as perfection. ^ 

In the quotation above from Spinoza in which 
he denies beauty and confusion to the world, that 
is, the real world, he is thinking of relative beauty 
not absolute or intellectual beauty. He could as 
easily deny perfection as this kind of beauty to 
the world. He explains his use of these words. 
He says: "As good and evil are only relative 
terms, so also is perfection unless we take perfec- 
tion for the essence of the thing." "" If, then, one 
uses the word perfection to express the essence 
or reality of the world he speaks correctly. Spi- 
noza also explains his use of the word beauty, 
thus: "Only in relation to our imagination can 
things be called beautiful or deformed, ordered 
or confused." ^ Spinoza is defining strictly his 
use of the word beautiful. He would apply it to 
things of time and sense. To him it is a relative 
term and expresses what Mrs. Eddy calls in her 
sentence above a "mortal belief." Consequently 
Spinoza does not use it to express an eternal es- 
sence. If he had chosen to use it for both kinds 
of beauty as Mrs. Eddy did, he could have used it 
also for intellectual or absolute beauty as the Neo- 
platonists did. But he preferred for the sake of 



»0n Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 337.) 
' Cog. Met. 1. 6. 
* Letter, 15. 



Cosmology. 107 

clearness to designate this idea by the term per- 
fection. This is said to make it plain that at this 
point there is no difference in thought but only 
in terms between Mrs. Eddy and Spinoza. She 
is very loyal. 

Here we should pause to notice that the au- 
thor of Christian Science, the Neoplatonists and 
Spinoza identify four great ideas which they apply 
to the world ; reality, eternity, perfection, beauty. 
We have the right to ask if this agreement is ac- 
cidental. If not, the first writer only in point of 
time can be an original thinker. 

It no doubt is a surprise to many to find that 
Mrs. Eddy rejects miracles. But from her view 
of nature she must do so as also the Neoplatonists 
did. 

She says: "The so-called miracles of Jesus 
did not specially belong to a dispensation now 
ended ;'* ^ *'The good is natural and primitive. It 
is not miraculous to itself;"'' "On this spiritually 
scientific basis Jesus explained his cures, which 
appeared miraculous to outsiders ;" ' "Miracles 
are impossible in Science, and here Science takes 
issue with popular religions." * So then what 
Jesus did seemed miraculous to those that looked 
on but it was not really so. It was not miraculous 
to those who had understanding. It was miracu- 
lous to the ignorant and uninitiated only. 

1 S. and H. p. 123. 
^ 8. and H. p. 128. 
' 8. and H. p. 138. 
* 8. and H. p. 83. 



108 The Origin of Christian Science. 

Why does Mrs. Eddy reject miracles? Be- 
cause she is more philosophic than Biblical. She 
is following the Neoplatonists who, as we have 
seen, allow nothing to be preternatural or super- 
natural. Speaking of the healings of Jesus and 
of Christian Science, she says: ''Now, as then, 
these mighty works are not supernatural but su- 
premely natural." ' Speaking of the resurrection 
of Christ, she says: ''It was not a supernat- 
ural act. On the contrary it was a divinely nat- 
ural act ;" ' "A miracle fulfills God's law but does 
not violate that law."' 

Now who said that a miracle is something 
supernatural? Who has defined a miracle as an 
event that is superior to or contrary to or a viola- 
tion of the laws of nature? May be some loose- 
speaking theologian did that in the hearing of Mrs. 
Eddy, but as she philosophizes about the matter 
just as Spinoza does I prefer to think she is in- 
debted to him for her "revelation" on this subject. 

Spinoza discussing the question of miracles 
says : "Nature cannot be contravened, * * * 
she preserves a fixed and immutable order." * So 
if we define a miracle as an event contrary to the 
laws of nature, there is no miracle. 

Some delight so to reason. Stated in syllo- 
gistic form the argument is as follows: Nature 
includes all reality and all events past and present. 



^ S. and H. Preface, p. xi. 
» S. and H. p. 44. 
9 8. and H. p. 134f. 
*Theo.-Pol. Treat. Chap. 6. 



Cosmology, 109 

Everything that has happened is a part of nature 
and since it is a part of nature it is according to 
nature. Therefore miracles being contrary to 
nature are not or are impossible. So the record 
of miracles in the New Testament can not be be- 
lieved. 

David Hume so reasoned. Sitting in his 
study in England in the 18th century he could by 
this cunning but craven begging of the question 
and this ingenius assumption, affirm what was 
done or not done in Palestine in the first century. 
If there ever was a raw insult flung in the face 
of reason, and that, too, in the name of logic, this 
is it. Professing to think as a philosopher he 
assumes in his premises the very thing that is to 
be proved. Famous as a historian he undertakes 
by means of dialectics alone to say what was not 
a fact. We can easily conclude that an event 
which is defined as impossible has never hap- 
pened. Some great men "make history" but 
David Hume proposed to unmake it. It is a case 
of adjusting fact to philosophy not philosophy to 
fact. Had it not served so well the prejudices 
of skepucs and infidels this specimen of deduc- 
tion would have given Hume fame not as a great 
logician but as a smart sophist. ^ 

His other argument agamst miracles, namely, 
that no amount of testimony can make a miracle 
credible, inasmuch as it is more probable that 
men He than that miracles happen, is another 



* Cf. his essay on Miracles. 



110 The Origin of Christian Science. 

specimen of shameful sophistry. By this kind of 
reasoning I cannot beHeve any man who claims, 
for example, to have reached the North Pole; for 
as lying is very common and reaching the North 
Pole is confessedly a very rare occurrence, if in 
fact it ever took place, there being only two per- 
sons in the history of the world that even claimed 
to have done it, I as a cautious reasoner, must, as 
Hume would argue, weigh the probability of false 
testimony against the probability of the fact in 
question and decide the case off-hand against the 
claimants. I need not trouble myself to investi- 
gate the records of Cook and Peary. They have 
claimed what is impossible for scientific credi- 
bility. The only difference that can be between 
them is that the one may be a wicked charlatan 
and the other a deluded ignoramus. And more, 
this must be our judgment forever, until those 
who claim to have reached the North Pole out- 
number all the world's liars. When can we ever 
believe a poor fellow who achieves this heroic 
deed? 

When an empirical philosopher, as Hume 
was, attempts to settle a question of fact, of his- 
tory, by means of logic, he deserves the contempt 
of logicians. Christianity has nothing to fear 
from learned infidelity, except its sophistry. 
How is it that so many have accepted his state- 
ment as the conclusion of a profound thinker? 
What is the matter with Hume's admirers ? 

But Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy take a different 
turn and one more sly and subtle. Though af- 



Cosmology. Ill 

firming as the Neopatonists do and as Hume does, 
that all is natural and that nothing is contrary to 
or above nature they do not reject the New Testa- 
ment narratives of miracles. No, they were actual 
events and natural, "divinely" and ''supremely" 
so. But they were also miraculous events, that is, 
events to be wondered at by the ignorant. The 
miracles of the Bible are miracles to the unlearned 
only, not to the initiated and wise ones. They 
were phenomena that were not understood by the 
masses but nothing more. 

Read the quotations again from Mrs. Eddy 
and see that I am rightly interpreting her. Wheth- 
er or not this method of explaining the miracles 
be regarded as brilliant, it is certain that it is not 
original with Mrs. Eddy. It is another one of 
her ''revelations" that Spinoza also was favored 
with. Remember that she says : "All Science is 
a revelation." He says : "A miracle is an event 
of which the causes cannot be explained by the 
natural reason through a reference to ascertained 
workings of nature; but since miracles were 
wrought according to the understanding of the 
masses, who are wholly ignorant of the working 
of nature, it is certain that the ancients took for 
a miracle whatever they could not explain by the 
method adopted by the unlearned in such cases." ' 

When we speak then of the miracles of the 
Bible our attention should be directed not to the 
greatness of the work that was done but to the ob- 



^ Cf. Theo.-Pol. Treat. Chap. 6. 



112 The Origin of Christian Science, 

tuseness of the minds that marvelled at it. Mir- 
acle becomes another name for ignorance. Spi- 
noza says : "I have taken miracles and ignorance 
as equivalent terms." ' Jesus and the apostles did 
things that caused the mouths of their dull con- 
temporaries to gape open in blank amazement. The 
little secret by which they did it, however, they 
were not frank enough to disclose. The honor of 
doing this was reserved for another and has final- 
ly been conferred on Mary Baker G. Eddy "per 
Spinoza, the Jew, assisted materially, that is, spir- 
itually, by certain heathen philosophers; I mean, 
directed wholly by them. 

Mrs. Eddy, like Spinoza, is a Neoplatonist 
that holds only verbally to the Bible. That is, she 
is a pagan bird displaying the bright plumage of 
Christian nomenclature. Ralph Waldo Emerson, 
I said, had too much honor to do this. He grew 
his own feathers. But underneath the livery in 
which they do their fussing and strutting respeo 
tively, is much unsavory meat. 

* Letter, 23. 



CHAPTER IV. 

ANTHROPOLOGY. 

The Neoplatonists held to the theory of tri- 
chotomy. That is, they considered a human being, 
to be a compound of three elements, mind, soul 
and body. But the material element was resolved 
by them into unreality. Dichotomy, or the theory 
that a person is composed of two parts, mind and 
body, is the common view of psychologists now, 
though there are still some who advocate tri- 
chotomy. 

Though her psychology is Neoplatonic, Mrs. 
Eddy, judged from one standpoint, belongs to 
neither of these two classes. To her, mortal man 
is a compound of mind and matter. But there is 
really no such existence ; mortal man is a delusion. 
To her, man, that is, immortal or real man, is not 
a compound of two or more elements but a simple 
substance. He is mind and nothing more. Body 
with all the notions, opinions, sensations, etc., that 
arise from it or are supposed to enter the mind 
through it, are unreal and do not belong to the 
real and true man and should not even be con- 
sidered as having existence. Mrs. Eddy allows 
to the real man only those mental activities that 
the Neoplatonists said belonged to the mind in 
distinction from the soul; they of course discard- 
ed from the real man all physical qualities but 



114 The Origin of Christian Science. 

ascribed to the soul certain mental activities 
which Mrs. Eddy discards as belonging to the 
realm of the unreal. We find soul in her termin- 
ology but it is, she says, a synonym for mind. ' 
The real man is simply mind. 

Now does Mrs. Eddy mean by mind the same 
as the Neoplatonists mean by mind or nous? In 
eliminating physical qualities from the real man 
does Mrs. Eddy substract from man as he is com- 
monly conceived as much as the Neoplatonists 
would have done had they eliminated both physi- 
cal and psychical qualities, leaving only the intel- 
lectual? To these questions, striking as it really 
is, the answer is, yes. By mind Mrs. Eddy means 
not sensation, not opinion, not memory, not dis- 
cursive reason, but intellect or intuitive conscious- 
ness; and this is exactly what the Neoplatonists 
mean by nous or the highest of the three compon- 
ent parts of human nature. Keeping in mind this 
one point of difference between the two systems, 
the similarities will become too numerous to men- 
tion. 

It will be seen therefore that in Christian 
Science anthropology means little more than psy- 
chology. 

Accordingly, in this chapter, we need to re- 
view only the more general aspects of human na- 
ture. The deeper and more intricate questions 
are reserved for the chapters on Psychology and 
Ethics. In this chapter it is appropriate to dis- 



^ Cf. S. and H. p. 115. 



Anthropology, 115 

pose also of Mrs. Eddy's theories as to Jesus 
Christ, since she regards him as a human being 
only, that is, as possessing divinity the same in 
kind with that which all men possess but superior 
in degree, it may be. Her explanation of him 
must be consistent with her philosophy. In work- 
ing out this problem we will see how she follows 
Spinoza, for whom Synesius especially blazed the 
way, who solved the problem quite ingeniously 
two hundred and fifty years ago. 

Mrs. Eddy teaches that the real man exists 
eternally. He is without beginning of days or 
end of years. He belongs to God's creation and 
his duration is timeless. Man is God's idea or 
thought and God's ideas and thoughts are eternal. 
He co-exists with God, and does so necessarily 
since God cannot exist without his reflection 
which reflection man is. Mind is by its very na- 
ture active ; that is, it must think. In thinking it 
must think about something ; that is, it must have 
thoughts or ideas. Therefore the existence of 
God requires that men also who are his thoughts 
or ideas exist, and since God eternally exists they 
must so exist. It is easily seen that in this we 
have a repetition of what was said of the relation 
of creation to God. At times, Mrs. Eddy seems 
to consider that man and his ideas constitute the 
entire creation, though she is not so clear on this 
point as we wish she were. ' Man's ideas are of 
course God's ideas. God is the great circle in- 



=Cf. 8. and H. pp. 515 and 503. 



116 The Origin of Christian Science. 

eluding in itself many other circles which are sons 
and daughters of God; and in these circles are 
again other smaller circles which are the ideas of 
men and women. These taken together constitute 
creation, it seems. God's ideas, which are men 
and women and their ideas which also are reflec- 
tions of God," or God's children and grand- 
children, make up the created universe. There 
probably are no great-grand-children. 

Mrs. Eddy says: It is a false conclusion to 
suppose ''that there are two separate, antagonistic 
entities and beings, two powers, namely. Spirit 
and matter, — resulting in a third person (mortal 
man) who carries out the delusion of sin, sickness, 
and death ;" ^ ''That which sins, suffers and dies, 
I named mortal mind;" ^ "There is, strictly speak- 
ing, no mortal mind ;" * "Immortal man was and is 
God's image or idea, even the infinite expression 
of infinite Mind, and immortal man is co-existent 
and co-eternal with that Mind. He has been for- 
ever in the eternal Mind, God ;" ' "Harmonious 
and immortal man has existed forever, and is al- 
ways beyond and above the mortal illusion of any 
life, substance, and intelligence as existent in mat- 
ter;"^ An "erroneous postulate is, that man is both 
mental and material ;" ' "Man is the idea of God, 



^Cf. S. and H. p. 336; p. 503. 

= fif. and H. p. 204. 

^ Retros. and Intros. p. 40 

* No and Yes. p. 25. 

» 8. and H. p. 336. 

« 8. and H. p. 302. 

' 8. and H. p. 91. 



Anthropology. 117 

not formed materially but spiritually, and not sub- 
ject to decay and dust;"' ''Man as the offspring 
of God, as the idea of Spirit, is the immortal evi- 
dence that Spirit is harmonious and man eter- 
nal ;" ' "Man ; God's spiritual idea, individual, per- 
fect, eternal;"* "The forever Father must have 
had chidren prior to Adam. The great / am made 
all 'that was made'. Hence man and the spiritual 
universe co-exist with God ;" * "Man in Science 
is neither young nor old. He has neither birth 
nor death." ' 

From these sentences it is clear that what 
Mrs. Eddy means by immortal or real man is what 
is commonly understood as that part or faculty 
of the mind that thinks, that knows absolutely, 
that part to which intuitions and consciousness 
are referred, which is that part of man that the 
Neoplatonists called nous. . This part of man 
they considered to be perfect and eternal as Mrs. 
Eddy does. Plato, as is well known, believed in 
the pre-existence of the soul (pseuche) . The 
Neoplatonists believed the more in the pre-exist- 
ence, that is, the eternal existence, of the mind 
(nous) and its ideas. Of the eternal existence of 
the mind independent and apart from the body, 
before it entered the body and after it shall de- 
part from it, Spinoza said many beautiful things. ' 

Mrs. Eddy ascribes to immortal man those 
qualities which Plotinus ascribes to ideas of the 



^ /S. and H. p. 200 * 8. and H. p. 267. 

» /8. and H. p. 29 ^ B. and H. p. 244. 

» Sf. and H. p. 115. « Cf. Eth. 5. 23. 



118 The Origin of Christian Science. 

intellectual world or of God. In this world he 
says there is eternity, not time; there is neither 
evil nor privation nor defect. ' In this world 
everything is perfect and eternal. 

How Mrs. Eddy can thus follow Plotinus is 
made possible and plain simply by her definition 
that man is God's idea. God's ideas must be perfect 
and eternal. We must not forget that the Neopla- 
tonists conceived of Plato's ''eternal world of ideas" 
as God's ideas. They originate and are related as 
creations or eternal thoughts of the divine mind. 

What was said above has now I trust become 
quite obvious, namely, that anthropology in Chris- 
tian Science is little more than psychology, and 
therefore further consideration of this phase of 
the subject is reserved for the chapter on Psychol- 
ogy. 

It will cause us to appreciate more Mrs. 
Eddy's conception of man in the parallel just 
drawn to notice that she defines life or explains 
it away just as the Neoplatonists do. We are in 
the habit of thinking of life as being something 
other and more inclusive than mind or thought, 
but these thorough-going monists must explain all 
reality in terms of mind. If therefore life is any- 
thing it is mind, and nothing more. 

Mrs. Eddy says : ''Life is God, or Spirit, the 
supersensible, eternal ;" ' "Life is divine Principle, 
Mind, Spirit. Life is without beginning and 
without end. Eternity, not time, expresses the 



^ Cf. 5. 9. 10. 

» Unity of Good p. 13. 



Anthropology. 119 

thought of Life, and time is no part of eternity;" ' 
"Life is eternal ;" ' ''Life is, like Christ, 'the same 
yesterday, and today and forever'. Organization 
and time have nothing to do with Life;"' "One 
moment of divine consciousness or the spiritual 
understanding of Life and Love is a foretaste of 
eternity. This exalted view obtained and re- 
tained when the Science of being is understood, 
would bridge over with life discerned spiritually 
the interval of death, and man would be in full 
consciousness of his immortality and eternal har- 
mony, where sin, sickness, and death are un- 
known. Time is a mortal thought, the divisor of 
which is the solar year. Eternity is God's meas- 
urement of Soul-filled years." * 

In the above sentences note that life is iden- 
tified or confused with eternity, with God, with 
divine principle, with mind and spirit. And no- 
tice that "divine consciousness" is the same as 
the "spiritual understanding of Life" the exer- 
cise of which is a "foretaste of eternity." And 
notice again that time is regarded as "no part of 
eternity." "Time is a mortal thought", that is, 
it is unreal ; and Mrs. Eddy holds that "all the real 
is eternal". ' If then life is something real it is 
eternal. Without going into these intricacies of 
thought it is impossible to understand Mrs. Eddy. 
But consider that the more winding in dark places 



'S. and H. p. 468. cf. p. 200. 
*;Sf. and H. p. 246. 
' 8. and H. p. 249. 

* 8. and H. p. 598f. 

• 8. and H. p. 353. 



120 The Origin of Christian Science, 

her way is the more obvious is it that she follows 
another who first traveled these devious and 
doubtful paths. 

Forgetting for the present other points let 
us see how the Neoplatonists too confuse the ideas 
of life and eternity. Plotinus defines eternity as 
''life which is now infinite, because it is all, and 
nothing of which is consumed, because nothing 
pertaining to it is either past or future, since 
otherwise it would not be all things at once." ' This 
is also his conception of mind or intellect. ' He 
has the same idea of the relation of time and eter- 
nity that Mrs. Eddy has, saying : ''With respect 
to eternity and time, we say that each of these is 
different from the other." ' That is, time is no 
part of eternity, as the context shows. In essence 
or nature they are different. 

Of the same opinion too is Spinoza who says : 
"Eternity cannot be defined in terms of time, or 
have any relation to time.'" Both Plotinus ' and 
Spinoza * exclude the idea of past and future from 
eternity. Plotinus says that eternity and not 
time is in the "intelligible world" ' and that in- 
tellect or mind "is the true eternity". ' Porphyry 
thinks eternity is an attribute of intellect. ' 



1 3. 7. 5. cf. 3. 7. 3. 

^ Cf. 5. 1. 4. 

»3. 7. 1. 

^Etn. 5. 23. Note. 

»Cf. 3. 7. 3. 

« Cf. Etn. 1. 33. Note 2. 

' 5. 9. 10. 

« 5. 1. 4. Tr. by Fuller. 

* Aux. 44. 



Anthropology. 121 

Comparing the language of Mrs. Eddy care- 
fully with that of the Neoplatonists it is clear that 
they have identical conceptions of the relation of 
time and eternity, namely, that they have nothing 
in common ; eternity is not infinite time as we are 
in the habit of thinking. There is in eternity no 
past nor future, that is, no succession. Notice 
that they are compelled to have this view as time 
or succession belongs to the world of matter and 
the sense of time arises from the body. Time 
has to do with unrealities. Therefore eternity 
which measures the existence of realities only has 
no relation to time. Here as always it is not an 
accidental parallel that we trace but one that be- 
longs to the genius of the two systems. 

And now we are prepared to see how it is 
possible for them to agree in identifying life with 
eternity or explaining one by means of the other. 
This is such a peculiar and curious parallel that 
it should of itself convict Mrs. Eddy of dependence 
on the Neoplatonists. We see also how they can 
identify life with mind, understanding, being, or 
reality. They must do this, as they both teach 
that all is mind. Life therefore must be mind or 
nothing. 

We have come again upon a group of identi- 
cal ideas: life, mind, reality, eternity. And we 
shall still have more of them. Mrs. Eddy and 
the Neoplatonists have a tendency to explain 
everything that has existence in terms of the one 
great reality, mind. If we cannot reduce it to 
this it has no existence. The Neoplatonists might 



122 The Origin of Christian Science. 

draw back a little from signing the last statement 
but Mrs. Eddy would not. They are strict meta- 
physical monists and cannot allow more than one 
reality. 

We are in the habit of looking upon nature as 
possessing many realities and many beautiful va- 
rieties. Instead of this Christian Science gives 
us a dead sameness. Life is not life; it is some- 
thing else. Other things are not other things, 
they are this same, one thing, mind or principle. 
Christian Science tells us that we are looking into 
the big end of a funnel full of many apparently 
different realities but which are really illusions, 
and that by means of its minimizing glass we may 
see all of these illusions sink down and vanish at 
the little end, where there is room for only the one 
reality, mind. Everything has to be run through 
this funnel. What will not go through has no ex- 
istence. Man is simply idea. He is intellectual- 
ity, he is thought and nothing more. He has, or 
rather he is, understanding, intuition or con- 
sciousness but nothing more. Eliminate body and 
all the so-called mental activities that are derived 
therefrom and what you have left is man. Man 
is simply mathematical knowing or mind, in its 
intellectual operation, without body or sensation 
or sense of time or memory or imagination or dis- 
cursive reason or any other of the appurtenances 
thereof. 

We have before shown that Christian Science 
is pantheistic; that it identifies nature and God. 
Since man is a part of nature we may then ex- 



Anthropology. 123 

pect to find Mrs. Eddy identifying him with his 
maker. And so we do. In places she teaches 
the contrary but that is a difficulty for others to 
deal with, not for the writer of this book. I may 
say to the credit of Mrs. Eddy, however, that such 
contradictions are necessarily involved in monis- 
tic philosophy. They are found in great abun- 
dance also in Neoplatonism. Hegel more than 
any other thinker has brought into bold relief the 
contradictions necessarily involved in this philos- 
ophy. Mrs. Eddy sees them and tries to hide 
them. For example notice how often she affirms 
that man in Christian Science does not lose his 
identity or individuality. She realized that her 
reasoning was pulling us over into the chasm of 
the annihilation of individuality and personality 
and she felt inclined to put up some railing. ' 
Mrs. Eddy saw the precipice toward which she was 
driving but as is her custom simply denied dog- 
matically that it was there. So did the Neopla- 
tonists try to avoid such a catastrophe. ' Man is 
related to God as the idea of a mind is related to 
the mind. Now an idea is in and of the mind. 
The Neopltaonists reasoned thus: The intellect, the 
intelligible and intelligence, these three are one. 
Intellect is the knowing subject; the intelligible is 
the known object; and intelligence is the act of 
knowing. These three are one, they said. ' Now 



^ Cf. 8. and H. p. 217 and p. 259. 
=" Cf. Plotinus in Ennead, 5. 9. 10. 

»CL Plotinus, Enneads, 6. 7. 41 and 5. 1. 4. cf. Porphyry, 
Aux. 44. cf. Proclus in Theo. Ele. 169. 



124 The Origin of Christian Science. 

this is not bad reasoning after all for an idealist; 
and from it has come much of the rationalistic 
idealism of the last centuries. In this reasonmg we 
have the basis for the so-called Neoplatonic trin- 
ity which was brilliantly developed by Hegel and 
as such repeated in dim outline in Christian 
Science, as we shall see. 

I am referring to the matter briefly here to 
point out that Mrs. Eddy, in following these ideal- 
ists in holding that man is an idea of infinite 
mind, is following them also in identifying him 
with that mind. 

Mrs. Eddy says : "As a drop of water is one 
with the ocean, a ray of light one with the sun, 
even so God and man, Father and son, are one in 
being." ' 

Concerning the illustration of the ray of light 
and the sun we have already spoken. As to the 
illustration of the drop of water and the ocean it 
is evident that a part of anything is identical with 
that thing. Remember we have found Mrs. Eddy 
reasoning thus : "If Mind is within and without 
all things, then all is Mind." ' She emphasizes 
this statement as being a scientific definition and 
it seems that she speaks correctly. When we are 
thinking metaphysically to say that one thing is 
within and without another is to identify the other 
with it. So she identifies man with God. 

Now a similar illustration is attributed by 
Is. Misses to Spinoza. He says that Spinoza re- 

^ 8. and H. p. 361. 
2 S. and H. p. 257. 



Anthropology. 125 

garded the relation of individual things to the 
creator to be as the relation of "waves of the sea 
to the water of the sea", and cites another illus- 
tration like it in the Kabbala, namely, that they 
are related as "the folds of a garment to the gar- 
ment itself". ' The conception, if not the lan- 
guage, is traceable to the Neoplatonists. It is a 
good illustration for idealistic pantheists. Mrs. 
Eddy is following these thinkers who do their 
best to teach both the sameness of created things 
with the creator and their distinction from him. 
They all are experts at it. We have no fault to 
find with their way of doing it. We are simply 
showing that Mrs. Eddy is doing it just as the 
pagan philosophers and infidels did it, but no 
better than they did it. 

Man as defined by Mrs. Eddy cannot be a free 
agent. An idea of the mind is determined by the 
mind. Therefore man's activities or ideas are of 
necessity what they are. They are causally de- 
termined. Freedom of will is a delusion. Choice 
is impossible. 

It may be repeated that Mrs. Eddy, since she 
finds the expression, "will of God," in the Scrip- 
tures, must ascribe will to God ; ' but she means 
by it when so used, as we have shown, not the 
power of choice or self-determination in view of 
future action but divine understanding. Will in 
any other sense, or what we mean by the term, 



^ In Zeitschrift fur Exacte Philosophie. Vol. 8, p. 363. cf. also 

Schwegler's Hist, of Phil. p. 220. 
2 Cf. 8. and H. p. 597. 



126 The Origin of Christian Science. 

has no existence in the real man. Will as purpose 
involves time and is a quality of mortal man. She 
says : ''Will, — the motive power of error ; mortal 
belief. * * * ^ wrong doer." ' "Will-power 
is capable of all evil ;" ' ''Human will belongs to 
the so-called material senses ;" ^ "Every function 
of the real man is governed by the divine Mind." * 
Spinoza has the same view exactly as to the 
necessity of man's actions. Explaining will 
away, just as Mrs. Eddy does, he says: "A par- 
ticular volition and a particular idea are one and 
the same." ' This is his way of proving that "will 
and understanding are one and the same". His 
conclusion is that the "mind is determined to wish 
this or that by a cause", ^ and the cause of all ideas 
is God. ' This is again the ground for his conclu- 
sion that nothing is contingent; that all things, 
human actions as well as natural events, are caus- 
ally determined. He says: "It is in the nature 
of reason to perceive things truly, namely, as they 
are in themselves, that is not as contingent, but 
as necessary." ' The thought is that we see things 
as they really are when we see them as necessary 
and not as contingent. Proclus appears to advo- 
cate the same view when he says that Providence 
or the superintending deity sees indefinite things 



^ S. and H. p. 597. 

2 S. and H. p. 206. 

' ;S. and H. p. 144. 

* S. and H. p. 151. cf. p. 424. 

^Eth. 2. 4d. Corollary, Proof. 

''Ein. 2. 48. 

' Cf. Eth. 2. 7. Note and 2. 9. 

^Eth. 2. 44. Proof. 



Anthropology. 127 

as definite. ' Mrs. Eddy says : "Accidents are 
unknown to God, or immortal Mind. * * * 
Under divine Providence there can be no acci- 
dents." ' 

The student will see that this view is logical- 
ly necessary for those who hold that the creator 
made the world or all realities simply by intellec- 
tion or intuitive thinking and not by choosing one 
of two or more mental pictures and willing it to 
be. Thus we see, what we perhaps have already 
anticipated, how Mrs. Eddy whittles off the at- 
tributes of man, as she does the attributes of God, 
until man, the real or immortal man, is also robbed 
of personality. 

I ask the student to notice that I am not 
pointing out accidental similarities between Spi- 
noza and Mrs. Eddy. From the mere fact that 
two thinkers teach the determinism of the will we 
can infer nothing as to their relation; for travel- 
ing independently and on different roads they 
might by accident meet at this point. From see- 
ing Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy at the same depot, 
we can infer nothing. But when we see them 
start from the same place, travel on the same 
road and get off at the same station and go to- 
gether in the same winding way around town and 
finally stop at the same hotel, we have the right 
to infer that they are intimately related. A de- 
tective would hardly want facts more significant 
than these. And since in this case we cannot say 

^Prov. 2. (p. 22.) 
' 8. and H. p. 424. 



128 The Origin of Christian Science, 

that the woman is leading the man around we 
must say she is following him. 

One may see at a glance that Mrs. Eddy with 
her definition of man must reject the Bible doc- 
trine of the Fall. It is impossible for immortal 
man to fall or commit sin. He is the true reflec- 
tion of God and since God is without imperfec- 
tions so must his reflection be. If the body be- 
fore the mirror is perfect, so will the image in the 
mirror be perfect and must be. And again, any 
imperfection in the reflection demonstrates im- 
perfection in the original that is reflected. 

Mrs. Eddy says : "In divine Science, man is 
the true image of God. The divine nature was 
best expressed in Christ Jesus, who threw upon 
mortals the truer reflection of God and lifted their 
lives higher than their poor thought-models would 
allow, — thoughts which presented man as fallen, 
sick, sinning, and dying. The Christlike under- 
standing of scientific being and divine healing in- 
cludes a perfect Principle and idea, — perfect God 
and perfect man, — as the basis of thought and 
demonstration. If man was once perfect but has 
now lost his perfection, then mortals have never 
beheld in man the reflex image of God. The lost 
image is no image ;'' ' "Never born and never dy- 
ing, it were impossible for man under the gov- 
ernment of God in eternal Science to fall from his 
high estate." "" 



1 S. and H. p. 259. 

2 ^. and LL. p. 258. cf. p. 215. 



Anthropology, 129 

The reader is requested to notice that this 
doctrine of Mrs. Eddy is based not upon the rela- 
tion of two persons, father and son, the latter of 
whom may sin and not involve the character of 
the other; but upon the relation of an idea to the 
mind, in which case imperfection in the idea dem- 
onstrates imperfection in the mind. It is connect- 
ed logically with the doctrine set forth above that 
man is not a free agent, that all his ideas are caus- 
ally determined. The cause is therefore account- 
able for the effect or contains the effect. Let us 
not forget that in Christian Science man is not a 
person but an idea or a collection of ideas. The 
student of philosophy will readily see that in all 
this we have a reproduction of the Neoplatonic 
development of Plato's world of ideas in which 
there is no imperfect idea. The world of ideas 
became for the Neoplatonists God's ideas. As 
this phase of the subject belongs more properly 
to psychology, I defer further treatment of it here. 

Since Mrs. Eddy denies to man a fall or lapse 
in his essential nature and professes to hold to the 
Bible, it is interesting to see how she deals with 
the account of the sin of Adam and Eve as re- 
corded in Genesis. 

In brief it is this. In the third chapter of 
Genesis, we have not an account of the sin or lap?e 
of immortal man but of the origin of mortal man. 
Now what is mortal man as here characterized? 
Mortal man or mortal mind is the belief that there 
is a reality, or something, other than or opposite to 
God. 



130 The Origin of Christian Science, 

In this explanation we have a faint reproduc- 
tion of Hegel. Students of Hegel may recall how 
much of his philosophy is suggested by three 
words, thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Thesis 
stands for absolute existence or God; antithesis 
for his creation, as ideas coming to self-conscious- 
ness or to that stage of development in which they 
affirm their own existence in opposition or con- 
trast to that of the absolute. The so-called fall of 
Adam and Eve as related in Genesis is a picture of 
the rise of this self-consciousness or the knowl- 
edge that we have existence as in opposition to 
God. Of course in this we have an explanation 
of the fall that explains it away. It becomes 
rather one stage in the evolution of the race and 
the universe. ' It was not a **fall down*' but a 
"fall up" as Henry Ward Beecher eloquently and 
heretically preached. ' Mrs. Eddy too, strange to 
say, finds in the first sins of the race ground for 
optimism. They become a ''cleansing upheaval." ' 
How darkness can help on the cause of light is 
difficult to see. This trio of brilliants cannot suc- 
ceed in getting it into our heads that going down 
is going up. 

The third word, synthesis, Hegel used to sym- 
bolize thought as realizing the oneness of all 
things. It stands for the unity of both thesis and 
antithesis. Now this is the Hegelian trinity 
which is also Neoplatonic, as will be seen. 



* Cf. Hegel's Philosophp of History. Part 3, Sec. 3. Chap. 2. 

2 Cf. Treasury of Illustration, p. 470. 

3 8. and H. p. 540. cf. p. 579f. 



Anthropology. 131 

It is not affirmed here that Mrs. Eddy's explan- 
ation of the fall is derived from Hegel's or is the 
same in detail as his, but only that it is suggestive 
of his. But since Mrs. Eddy reproduces the nat- 
uralistic trinity, as will be proved, which is used 
by Hegel to explain the fall, it is proper to point 
out that Mrs. Eddy comes very close at this point 
to, if indeed she does not step in, the tracks of this 
great idealist, who owed no small debt to the Neo- 
platonists. The three words of Hegel referred to, 
correspond to three words of the Neoplatonists, 
intellect, intelligible, and intelligence, or the sub- 
ject knowing, the object known and the act of 
knowing, by virtue of which the subject and ob- 
ject are united and become in reality one. All 
this is quite natural in an idealistic system. Mrs. 
iiiddy has the same conceptions but couched in 
words better suited to her purpose, as we shall 
see. 

As Mrs. Eddy's doctrine of Jesus Christ is 
that he was only a human being or, what amounts 
to the same thing, that he was divine as all men 
are, that is, that he possessed a nature the same 
in kind with ours, though in character he reached 
a degree of perfection above us, it is proper in this 
connection to show the source of her revelations 
on this subject. In Christian Science the treat- 
ment of Jesus Christ belongs to anthropology 
rather than theology. 

Briefly stated her doctrine is as follows. 
Christ is the ideal man; or he is the true idea of 
God, as any man is when al^ material or mortal 



132 The Origin of Christian Science, 

qualities are eliminated. The two names, Jesus 
and Christ, give us two conceptions of the Savior, 
the latter being the true one and symbolizing his 
eternal, spiritual and perfect nature; the former 
being the human conception of him as having a 
mortal nature and temporal relations, which all 
ceased with his ascension. But in this case the 
ideal man or the Christ was not limited or ren- 
dered imperfect by the mortal man, Jesus. ' A 
very common synonym for Christ is truth, which 
she uses not figuratively of Christ but as describ- 
ing literally his nature. Her conception is that 
Christ, the ideal and true man, is not a person. 
He is simply an idea which she contends any and 
every real man is. So then in Jesus Christ we 
have the example of one who possessed, or attained 
finally to, perfect understanding, in whom intui- 
tive consciousness reigned, who exhibited the 
kingly power of mind, who knew only reality and 
eternity and who had no sense of time, limitation, 
suffering, sin, sickness, or death. Jesus Christ 
is the way-shower, ''only this and nothing more." 
Mrs. Eddy says: "Christ the true idea of 
God ;" ' "The Christ dwelt forever an idea in the 
bosom of God, the divine Principle of the man 
Jesus ;" ' "Christ is the ideal Truth, that comes to 



^ There is proof, however, that Mrs. Eddy believed that Jesus 
came by degrees to that perfection of character which was 
attained by the complete reign of the Christ in him. Cf. S. 
and H. pp. 30, 32, and 53* But her inconsistencies are many. 
Some, it may be, she did not see but some, the most, it 
seems, are the necessary result of her false premises. 

2 8. and H. p. 54. cf. p. 50. 

3 8. and H. p. 29. cf. p. 331. 



Anthropology. 133 

heal sickness and sin ;" ' "The divine image, idea, 
or Christ was, is, and ever will be inseparable 
from the divine Principle, God ;" ' ** Jesus demon- 
strated Christ ; he proved that Christ is the divine 
idea of God ;" ' ''The advent of Jesus of Nazareth 
marked the first century of the Christian era, but 
the Christ is without beginning of years or end of 
days ;" ' "Christ expresses God's spiritual, eternal 
nature ;" ^ "The corporeal man Jesus was hu- 
man ;" ' "This dual personality of the unseen and 
the seen, the spiritual and material, the eternal 
Christ and the corporeal Jesus manifest in flesh, 
continued until the Master's ascension, when the 
human, material concept, or Jesus, disappeared ;" ' 
"The 'Man of sorrows' best understood the noth- 
ingness of material life and intelligence and the 
mighty actuality of all-inclusive God, good ;'' ' 
"Truth has no consciousness of error ;" ' "This 
enabled him to be the mediator, or way-shower, 
between God and men ;" " "The eternal Christ, 
his spiritual selfhood, never suffered ;" " "The 
real Christ was unconscious of matter, of sin, dis- 
ease, and death and was conscious only of God, of 
Good, of eternal Life and harmony." " 



^S. and H. p. 473. cf. pp. 135, 34, 35, 333. 

^S. and H. p. 333. 

^S. and H. p. 332. 

*S. and H. p. 333. 

» 8. and H. p. 333. 

« S. and H. p. 332. 

' 8. and H. p. 334. 

" 8. and H. p. 52. 

^ 8. and H. p. 243. " 8. and H. p. 38. 

" 8. and H. p. 30. " No and Yes. p. 45. 



134 The Origin of Christian Science, 

It is important that we observe two things in 
the above sentences. First, that Mrs. Eddy sees 
in Jesus of Nazareth only an ideal and perfect 
man. This becomes clear when we compare these 
statements with those that explain the nature of 
man. Secondly, his perfection consists in the 
fact that he possessed the divine principle, Christ, 
truth, God's idea, or perfect understanding. 

This enables us to see how Mrs. Eddy can 
confuse Christ with the Holy Spirit and even with 
Christian Science, and these in turn with each 
other. She says: ''Christ is the divine idea of 
God— the Holy Ghost, or Comforter;"^ ''He 
(Jesus) was endowed with the Christ, the divine 
Spirit, without measure;"' "The true Logos is 
demonstrably Christian Science, the natural law 
of harmony which overcomes discord ;" ^ "It 
(Christian Science) is a divine utterance, — the 
Comforter which leadeth into all truth." * All 
this is not confusion but made easy of apprehen- 
sion when we discover that what Mrs. Eddy means 
by Christ is simply an intuitive power of mind 
that gives a clear understanding of reality, and 
this the disciples got on the Day of Pentecost and 
this also Christian Science bestows on us. These 
three things by this expert manipulation become 
one thing. Here again we have a group of ideas 
that go into the Christian Science funnel and are 



^ /8f. ana H. p. 332. 

"" 8. and H. p. 30 cf. p. 137. 

» (S. and H. p. 134. 

* 8. and H. p. 127. 



Anthropology. 135 

pressed out the little end as one thing, which in 
this case, as in the others, is the same one thing, 
namely, mind. 

What has been said of Christ will enable us 
to prove more conclusively that Mrs. Eddy's con- 
ceptions of him are Neoplatonic, to which task we 
are now come. 

And first we observe that she identifies 
Christ with mind, as has just been stated, which, 
strange to say, is an identification of son and 
father. How could Mrs. Eddy do this? It was 
not impossible for her to do it inasmuch as she re- 
gards the Biblical trinity not as three persons, 
but as different expressions of one being or prin- 
ciple. She says : "The Ego is revealed as Fath- 
er, Son and Holy Ghost; but the full Truth is 
found only in Divine Science, where we see God 
as Life, Truth, and Love." ' The Neoplatonists 
could very naturally call mind the son of God as 
they posited a deity above mind. But how can 
Mrs. Eddy identify mind, which is her synonym 
for God, with the Son of God, when it is her con- 
tention that the Son of God is distinct from God, 
as the reflection of an object is from the object? 
Christian Scientists may solve this riddle if they 
can. But, while they are doing it, I suggest that 
she identifies mind with Christ or the father with 
the son, because she is either slavishly or cunning- 
ly following the Neoplatonists. Whether she 
blunders blindly or not she is reproducing them 



^ Unity of Good p. 64. 



136 The Origin of Christian Science, 

in her doctrines of Christ. Few maneuvers of 
Mrs. Eddy are more curious and circuitous than 
this one. 

She says: "They (metaphysical works) never 
crown the power of Mind as the Messiah." ' But 
she does. Here we have two more synonyms, 
mind and Messiah. And Mrs. Eddy understands 
rightly that Messiah and Christ are also syno- 
nyms, "* the former being the Hebrew word and 
the latter the Greek word for the promised Re- 
deemer of Israel and both meaning the Anointed 
One. 

Now will the reader please notice distinctly 
that we have here an identification of Christ or 
the Son of God with mind? We have from quota- 
tions already given anticipated this, but now we 
have before us her direct statement. We could 
trace her in her Neoplatonic meanderings with- 
out this "index finger," for her tracks are un- 
mistakable; but this sentence makes the task 
easier. 

What we mean is this, that Mrs. Eddy con- 
ceives of Christ as the Neoplatonists do of the 
infinite and eternal intellect, or what they called 
the nous. The properties or qualities of this 
hypostasis or nature were such as those Mrs. Eddy 
ascribes to Christ. It is free from the limitations 
of matter. It is ever conscious. Its ideas are 
eternal. It is without error. It does not suffer. A 



1 S. and H. p. 116. 
* Cf. 8. and H. p. 333. 



Anthropology. 137 

fuller analysis of the character of the nous will be 
found in the chapter on Psychology. The fact 
that Mrs. Eddy in identifying Christ and mind is 
repeating the metaphysics of the Neoplatonists is 
what concerns us here. 

Synesius, who said that in becoming a Chris- 
tian bishop he would give up neither his wife nor 
his philosophy, found himself facing the mystery 
of the incarnation. How could he explain Christ 
according to his philosophy? He did so by say- 
ing that he was the nous. ' Plotinus in designat- 
ing the nous as the creator's son had prepared the 
way most excellently for Synesius. Plotinus 
says : "As he who diligently surveys the heavens, 
and contemplates the splendor of the stars, should 
immediately think upon and search after their 
artificer, so it is requisite that he who beholds 
and admires the intelligible world, should diligent- 
ly inquire after its author, investigating who he 
is, where he resides, and how he produces such an 
offspring as intellect, a son beautiful and pure, 
and full of his ineffable fire." ' Proclus refers 
to the "paradigmatic cause," or the nous, as the 
"only-begotten." ' And these philosophers "made 
the way straight" for Spinoza, whose Neoplatonic 
explanation of Christ Mrs. Eddy has failed to im- 
prove upon. He says: "By this it will at once 
become clear, what we in the First Part have said, 
namely, that the infinite intellect, which we 



^Cf. Synesius of Cyrene by Alice Gardner p. 89. 

»3. 8. 11. 

* On Tim. Quoted in Select Works of Plotinus p. 323. 



138 The Origin of Christian Science, 

named the Son of God, must from all eternity be 
in nature." ' Notice at present in regard to this 
sentence only that Spinoza calls the ^'infinite in- 
tellect" the "Son of God." Again Spinoza says: 
"With regard to the Eternal Son of God, that is 
the Eternal Wisdom of God, which has manifested 
itself in all things and especially in the human 
mind, and above all in Christ Jesus, the case is 
otherwise. For without this no one can come to 
a state of blessedness, inasmuch as it alone teaches 
what is true or false, good or evil." ' As to this 
quotation notice now only that he identifies the 
"Son of God" with the "Wisdom of God" and 
that this "Son of God" or "Wisdom of God" is 
manifest in "all things and especially in the hu- 
man mind, and above all in Christ Jesus." Here 
is an element of mind or power of thought that is 
exhibited in nature and especially in the human 
mind (that is the higher qualities of it) and pre- 
eminently in Jesus Christ. Now what kind of 
wisdom or mentality is this? It is that kind 
which is independent of the body. It is spiritual 
or intellectual understanding. Spinoza, explain- 
ing how prophecy and revelation are possible to 
a higher kind of knowledge than that which is 
dependent on material symbols, says: "We may 
be able quite to comprehend that God can com- 
municate immediately with man, for without the 
intervention of bodily means He communicates to 
our minds His essence; still, a man who can by 



^Kurzg. Abh. 2. 22. (p. 97.) Tr. fr. German, cf. 1. 9. (p. 39.) 
'Letter, 21. 



Anthropology, 139 

pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither 
contained in nor deducible from the foundations 
of our natural knowledge, must necessarily pos- 
sess a mind far superior to those of his fellow- 
men, nor do I believe that any have been so en- 
dowed save Christ. To Him the ordinances of 
God leading men to salvation, were revealed di- 
rectly without words or visions, so that God man- 
ifested Himeslf to the Apostles through the mind 
of Christ as he formerly did to Moses through the 
supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of 
Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be 
called the voice of God, and it may be said that 
the wisdom of God (i. e. wisdom more than hu- 
man) took upon itself in Christ human nature, 
and that Christ was the way of salvation." ' 

In this language of Spinoza notice that Christ 
is superior to all other recipients of revelations in 
that he received or discerned them by means of the 
intuitive faculty and without material media, that 
is, that in Jesus, there was the free and untram- 
melled reign of the intellect and that he was, by 
virtue of this endowment, the wisdom of God and 
the way of salvation. 

We need not refrain from saying that Mrs. 
Eddy and Spinoza say certain beautiful things 
about Christ, some of which we may be inclined 
to accept tentatively. But that the Evangelist 
John by calling Christ the Logos meant to sug- 
gest that Christ is a school-master to bring us to 



» TheorPol Treat. Chap. 1. 



140 The Origin of Christian Science. 

Plato, which a few modern theologians along with 
Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy seem to imagine, is the 
height of absurdity. 

But let us not forget that whether these rev- 
elations of Mrs. Eddy concerning the character of 
Christ be beautiful or ugly, true or false, they 
come via Spinoza, the Jew, infidel and pantheist, 
and that the foundation for them is found in the 
philosophical profundities of certain learned pa- 
gans. 

We come now to consider how Mrs. Eddy dis- 
poses of the resurrection of Christ, We will find 
that her explanation of it or her explaining it 
away is Spinozaistic and has, like her explanation 
of the character of Christ, its metaphysical 
ground in Neoplatonism. 

Mrs. Eddy's position, stated frankly, is sim- 
ply this. There was no bodily resurrection of 
Jesus. He did not really die, though he was 
thought to have done so. And what seemed to 
be his death and resurrection was only one stage 
or step in his spiritual evolution or emancipation 
from the flesh, the consummation of which was 
realized in the ascension from the Mount of Olives, 
where the "mortal coil" was left behind forever. 
It was impossible for Jesus to reinhabit the taber- 
nacle of clay. The soul in the body is as a wan- 
dering star, "heaven's exile straying from the orb 
of light." * It will not depart after it has found 
again its orbit or true home. 

^Cf. Aux. 41. 



Anthropology. 141 

What then can the resurrection, so empha- 
sized in the Scriptures, mean? For the language 
of Holy Writ must be retained, though the truth 
of it is cast to the winds. ''Know all you ma- 
terialistic mortals that the resurrection is spirit- 
ual. It is better to stress the spirit of Scripture 
than the letter. So the resurrection properly un- 
derstood has no reference to the raising of the 
body to life but rather to the lifting of the mind 
to spiritual understanding. So be spiritually 
minded, get in tune with the infinite, become un- 
conscious of your body and you too will thus enter 
into the glorious inheritance of the resurrection 
life! For did not Paul say that Christians are 
raised together with Christ and should seek the 
things that are above?" 

Yes, Christian Science makes much of the 
philosophy of the resurrection but denies the fact 
of it. But Paul based the philosophy of it upon 
the fact of it, which only is a sane method. In 
the resurrection of Jesus Mrs. Eddy sees nothing 
done in his body but much don© in the minds of 
the Apostles and something accomplished, also, 
it may be, in the mind of Jesus. Matter was not 
affected at all, but there was a mighty movement 
of mind. The resurrection of Jesus in the light of 
Christian Science is philosophy teaching by de- 
lusion. 

Now let us hear Mrs. Eddy. She says : "He 
(Jesus) allowed men to attempt the destruction 
of the mortal body ;" ' "His disciples believed 



1 8. and H. p. 51. 



142 The Origin of Christian Science, 

Jesus to be dead while he was hidden in the sepul- 
chre, whereas he was alive ;" ' "They (his disci- 
ples) * * * saw him after his crucifixion and 
learned that he had not died ;" " "After his resur- 
rection he proved to the physical senses that his 
body was not changed until he himself ascended, — 
or, in other words, rose even higher in the under- 
standing of Spirit, God ;" ' "Jesus' unchanged 
physical condition after what seemed to be death 
was followed by his exaltation above all material 
conditions. * * * j^^ j^lg final demonstration, 
called the ascension, which closed the earthly rec- 
ord of Jesus, he rose above the physical knowl- 
edge of his disciples, and the material senses saw 
him no more. His students then received the 
Holy Ghost. By this is meant that by all they had 
witnessed and suffered, they were roused to an 
enlarged understanding of divine Science ;" * "The 
advent of this understanding is what is meant by 
the descent of the Holy Ghost;" ' "Our master re- 
appeared to his students, — to their apprehension 
he rose from the grave, — on the third day of his 
ascending thought, and so presented to them the 
certain sense of eternal Life." ® The Revelator is 
quoted with explanatory interpolations thus: "I 
am he that liveth, and was dead (not understood) ; 



1 8. and H. p. 44. 
'^ 8. and H. p. 46. 
» 8. and H. p. 46. 
* 8. and H. p. 46 f. 
^8. and H. p. 43. 
« ;Sf. and H. p. 509. 



Anthropology. 143 

and, behold, I am alive for evermore (Science 
has explained me) ." ' 

It is impossible for Mrs. Eddy to believe in 
the resurrection of Jesus, because the body per se 
is an evil. Jesus therefore in coming into the 
highest glory must have gotten rid of it. If he 
had departed from it while it was in the tomb he 
would not have returned to it. So there was no 
separation of soul and body in the time from the 
crucifixion to the morning of the so-called resur- 
rection. She will not accept the fact of the res- 
urrection and yet she will hold to the Bible. So 
she attempts to patch up this difficulty in the 
above fashion. She interprets the Bible accord- 
ing to her philosophy. 

But Spinoza disposes of Christ^s resurrec- 
tion in the same way and from the same phil- 
osophic necessity. He says: "I accept Christ's 
passion, death, and burial literally, as you do, but 
His resurrection I understand allegorically. I ad- 
mit, that it is related by the Evangelists in such 
detail that we cannot deny that they themselves 
believed Christ's body to have risen from the 
dead." ' What he means by ''allegorically" is ex- 
plained elsewhere thus: "I therefore conclude, 
that the resurrection of Christ from the dead 
was in reality spiritual, and that to the faithful 
alone, according to their understanding, it was 
revealed that Christ was endowed with eternity, 
and had risen from the dead (using dead in the 

* 8. and H. p. 334. 
^Letter, 25. 



144 The Origin of Christian Science. 

sense in which Christ said, *let the dead bury 
their dead')." ^ 

With the exception that Spinoza believes 
there was a Hteral dying of Christ and Mrs. Eddy 
does not, on which point their disagreement is of 
almost no significance, the parallel is all that we 
could wish and all that Christian Scientists may 
regret. Both hold that Christ's body was not 
raised from the dead, that the disciples thought it 
was, that "dead" in this connection means without 
understanding and that the result secured by this 
illusion of the disciples was the realization that 
Christ's nature is eternal. 

This remarkable exegitical maneuvre is not 
original either with Spinoza. It may be traced 
as far back as Synesius. Alice Gardner wonders 
why it is that Synesius singles out the resurrection 
of Christ as the one miracle that he rejects. 
Though writing fascinatingly of the character of 
this interesting personality she does not appreci- 
ate the fact that his philosophy, which he resolved 
not to give up, compelled him to reject especially 
the miracle of the resurrection. ' But it does not 
appear that it prevented him from accepting mir- 
acles in general. 

And in this connection it should be noted 
that Mrs. Eddy and Spinoza do not explain the 
other miracles as they do the resurrection. They 
deny the fact of the resurrection. But in regard 
to the other miracles, they did occur but they were 



^Letter, 23. 

2 Cf. Synesius of Gyrene, p. 109 f. 



Anthropology. 145 

all natural events and should not really be termed 
miracles. Thus they keep together, in their ser- 
pentine course in the underbrush of subtle specu- 
lation. 

Now, Synesius, contrary to the many of his 
day, understood the resurrection to be "a holy 
mystery," or as Dr. C. Bigg thinks he means, an 
allegory, which Spinoza understood it to be as he 
expressly affirms. That is, the resurrection is a 
pious fraud, a white lie. Synesius argues in de- 
fense of his position, that lying is necessary, that 
deception is better than naked truth for the com- 
mon run of people, who are unable *'to gaze on in- 
finite light." ' To tell them plainly that Christ 
has a spiritual and immaterial nature was letting 
too much light shine upon their eyes. It would 
blind them. So they must be duped and by de- 
grees gotten to this spiritual insight. 

The position of Synesius is the same as that 
of Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy, namely, that if a trick 
had not been worked upon the disciples, making 
them believe that the body of Christ was raised 
up, they would never have been brought to believe 
in his existence as independent of and free from 
the body, which is the significance of the ascen- 
sion, which was another illusion ; for it must have 
been a descension or cessation of the body rather 
than an ascension or a perpetuation of it. Thus 
by this enlightening illusion the disciples become 
gloriously disillusionized. By seeing their Lord 



^ Neoplatonism p. 339 f- 



146 The Origin of Christian Science, 

ascend into a cloud, in a body that they recognized, 
they learn that he has no body at all. One who 
can really so reason must have a legion of dull 
demons dancing in his "dome." If that be under- 
standing or true knowledge then pray let ignor- 
ance be our portion forever. 

The writer hopes that one can understand 
Christian Science without becoming a fool; but 
he is convinced that one cannot both understand 
it and believe it without losing the ability to think 
consistently. Christian Science paralyzes the 
power of reason. It is a microbe that feeds upon 
the logical faculty. 

Some playful boys, it is said, took the sign of 
a cabinet maker, "All kinds of twisting and turn- 
ing done here,'' and put it over the office door of 
an attorney. Not for fun but for truth's sake, I 
hang the same sign over the firm of Spinoza & 
Eddy, Specialists in Adapting Pagan Theology to 
the Modern Mind. And I remind the reader that 
the point of interest is not mainly that they both 
are proficient in the art of "twisting and turning" 
but that the female member of the firm does ex- 
actly the same kind of "twisting and turning" that 
was done by the male member, and that she has 
been much more lucky, than he was, in hitting 
upon a good market for her wares. He was frank 
and discovered plainly his goat's hair. She is 
foxy and hides in a great show of sheep's wool. 

It is somewhat comforting to orthodox peo- 
ple to discover that the claim of a type of schol- 
arship, that miracles are best understood as 



Anthropology. 147 

"pretty parables," is nothing other than the an- 
cient voice of Baal brought down to date by the 
addition of a certain critical tone; the voice of 
Baal, I say, whose priestess Jezebel dieth not and 
changeth not. She was not slain on Carmel 
where her puppet-prophets perished. She was 
much in evidence when John on Patmos received 
and delivered the last rvelation, ' and she yet 
speaketh lies and worketh abominations and de- 
ceiveth if possible the saints. Blessed is he that 
is not infected with the breath of her mouth or 
with the poison that droppeth from her pen. 

As the trinity as interpreted by Mrs. Eddy 
has to do with the nature of man and the char- 
acter of Christ, it seems proper to take up that 
subject here. The reader perhaps has discerned 
in this discussion already certain general features 
of the doctrine as taught by Mrs. Eddy and seen 
clearly that it is not in harmony with the Biblical 
doctrine of the trinity. Mrs. Eddy's explanation 
of the trinity is this. The Father, Son and Holy 
Ghost are three expressions of one being. They 
are not persons but manifestations. Besides, the 
New Testament terms do not give us, she thinks, 
the best symbolizing or presentation of the trin- 
ity. The trinity is best expressed by the three 
words, life, truth, and love. The trinity of Chris- 
tian Science is not a tripersonality but a triple 
manifestation, which may be seen in nature and 
man as well as in divinity. 



^Cf. Rev. 2:20-23. 



148 The Origin of Christian Science, 

Mrs. Eddy says: "The Ego is revealed as 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but the full Truth is 
found only in Divine Science where we see God as 
Life, Truth, and Love ;" ' "Life, Truth, and Love 
constitute the triune person called God, — ^that is, 
the triply divine Principle, Love. They repre- 
sent a trinity in unity, three in one,— the same in 
essence, though multiform in office: God the 
father-mother; Christ the spiritual idea of son- 
ship; divine Science or the Holy Comforter. 
These three express in divine Science the three- 
fold, essential nature of the infinite. They also 
indicate the divine Principle of scientific being, 
the intelligent relation of God to man and the uni- 
verse ;" ' "The advent of this understanding is 
what is meant by the descent of the Holy Ghost ;" " 
"Compare man before the mirror to his divine 
Principle, God. Call the mirror divine Science, 
and call man the reflection. Then note how true, 
according to Christian Science, is the reflection 
to its original ;'* * "Firmament, or understanding, 
united Principle to its idea. Life and (or) In- 
telHgence (corresponds to) this Principle; idea 
(corresponds to) the universe and man.'' ^ 

In addition to the points above specified no- 
tice that in the last quotation especially we have 
the clue to the original source of the Christian 



^ Unity of Good. p. 64. 
2 S. and H. p. 331f. 
» /S. and H. p. 43. 
* 8. and H. p. 515 f. cf. p. 467. 

« /Sf. and H. First Edition, p. 230. The parenthetical words 
are the writer's. 



Anthropology. 149 

Science trinity. The terms show that Mrs. Eddy 
does not follow the Neoplatonists verbally and also 
that they were not, at least in the first edition of 
Science and Health, selected with technical dis- 
crimination but her thought, which is easily ap- 
prehended, is an exact reproduction of theirs. 
Her trinity as explained more fully consists first 
of a thinking subject called principle; secondly, 
of its object of thought called an idea and corre- 
sponding to man and the universe; and, thirdly, 
of a mental act called the understanding by which 
subject and object or mind and its idea are united 
as one. 

As to the three words which she claims give 
the best expression of the trinity, the first, life, 
has no special significance and is simply a syno- 
nym for God or mind. The second, truth, is well 
chosen as it is her common synonym for Christ, 
and as truth also implies two things, a thinking 
subject and an object of thought clearly discerned. 
The third word, love, is selected with fine discrim- 
ination, since it is with Mrs. Eddy and her masters 
not only a synonym for understanding or intelli- 
gence, by which the subject and object are united 
as one; but since it also suggests an affinity or 
mutual attraction between them by virtue of 
which they are eternally affianced and are es- 
sentially one. Mrs. Eddy, or someone who has 
given literary finish to her writings, is a workman 
in words that needeth not to be ashamed. In 
this instance she shares honors quite equally with 
Spinoza. 



150 The Origin of Christian Science. 

The Christian Science trinity may be called 
the psychological trinity or the trinity of nature 
when nature is conceived ideally. It is also good 
form for a pantheism that would have a sem- 
blance, without the substance, of the Christian re- 
ligion. 

This naturalistic and idealistic trinity is eas- 
ily traced back through Hegel and Spinoza to the 
Neoplatonists. Hegel, as we have before pointed 
out, used the words thesis, antithesis and synthe- 
sis for his high development and attenuation of 
the doctrine. 

The following sentences from Spinoza iden- 
tify the naturalistic trinity and theological trin- 
ity in language as definite though not so detailed 
as Mrs. Eddy's. He says: ''The infinite intel- 
lect, which we named the son of God, must from 
all eternity be in nature ;" ' "With regard to the 
Eternal Son of God, that is the Eternal Wisdom 
of God, which has manifested itself in all things 
and especially in the human mind, and above all 
in Christ Jesus, the case is far otherwise." ' No- 
tice in these sentences that Spinoza conceives of 
Christ as a wisdom or a truth or a principle that 
is manifest in nature and in men, as it was pre- 
eminently in him who is known as Christ Jesus. 
That is, Christ is a manifestation of wisdom or 
understanding and not a person. Notice also that 
in this connection Spinoza has the order of the 
words, Christ Jesus, which Mrs. Eddy says that 



^Kurzg. AbU. 2. 22. (p. 97.) Trans, from German Version. 
^Letter, 21. 



Anthropology, 151 

she prefers ' rather than Jesus Christ, as Christ 
is the designation of a quality in the person Jesus, 
namely, wisdom or understanding. Spinoza also 
confuses the Spirit that the disciples received 
after the resurrection of Jesus with Christ or wis- 
dom as we have found Mrs. Eddy doing. He 
says : ''Because this wisdom was made especially 
manifest through Jesus Christ, as was said. His 
disciples, insofar as it was revealed to them by 
Him, preached it and showed that they were able 
beyond others to rejoice in this Spirit of Christ." ' 
Spinoza's suggested inference is that the disciples 
only saw Jesus after the resurrection, that is, they 
were the only ones that thought that they saw 
him; that is, their delusion was their wisdom. 
Mrs. Eddy had a good guide in sophistry. 

It can be easily seen that the interpretation 
of Christ as given by Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy re- 
quires that the Holy Spirit be considered as noth- 
ing else than the spirit of wisdom or understand- 
ing, which he possessed and which the disciples 
received when they learned that the resurrection 
was to be understood spiritually. It explains also 
how Mrs. Eddy can be so bold as to call Christian 
Science the Holy Ghost, since as she claims both 
give us the true knowledge of the unity of God, 
man and the universe. 

Now the philosophic basis for this kind of 
trinity is found in Neoplatonism ; or rather it is 



^ /Sr. and H. p. 333. 

^Letter, 21. Trans, from German Version. 



152 The Origin of Christian Science, 

the Neoplatonic trinity amplified so as to embrace 
the Biblical trinity. Or stated still more accu- 
rately, it is an explaining away of the Biblical 
trinity in order to make it harmonize with the 
psychological trinity of the Neoplatonists. 

Plotinus says: "Intellect, intelligence and 
the intelligible are one and the same thing." ' He 
argues that creation is related to the creator as 
the image ''in water, in mirrors or in shadows" ' 
is related to its object, in that the image exists 
by virtue of the object, thus furnishing the basis 
for the like figure of Mrs. Eddy's sentence above. 
Proclus says: ''Since thinking is the medium 
between that which thinks and the object of 
thought, these are the same, thinking likewise 
will be the same with each." ' Now, consider the 
sweeping significance that these statements must 
have when uttered by the founders of a system of 
idealism, the psychology of which becomes es- 
sentially its metaphysics. Existence in toto has 
three aspects, the knowing subject, the known ob- 
ject and the act of knowing and these three are 
one, namely, existence itself, or God. This is 
certainly a sort of trinity. But how the Biblical 
trinity should be confounded with this idealism is 
a marvel indeed. 

Spinoza says: "This truth seems to have 
been dimly recognized by those Jews who main- 
tained that God, God's intellect, and the things 



* 6. 7. 41. cf. 5. 1. 4. cf. Porphyry, Aux. 44. 
« 6. 4. 10. 
^Theo. Ele. 169. 



Anthropology. 153 

understood by God are identical," ' and that **in- 
dependent of God there are no objects of His 
knowledge, but that He Himself is the object of 
his knowledge, indeed He is that knowledge." " 

It is evident then that Spinoza's interpreta- 
tion of the Biblical trinity is a logical result of 
his Neoplatonic psychology and metaphysics and 
that the same is true of Mrs. Eddy's identical in- 
terpretation. I ask the reader to compare care- 
fully the last quotation from Mrs. Eddy with those 
from Plotinus, Proclus and Spinoza. This im- 
portant phase of the case rests thus with him. 

Prof. W. N. Clarke in his brilliant work, "An 
Outline of Christian Theology," would explain the 
Biblical trinity in about the same way as Mrs. 
Eddy and Spinoza do. But he does not tell us 
where the roots of the theory grow. To read all 
this into the first verses of the Gospel of John is 
the accommodation, not the interpretation, of 
Scripture. Plato, too long hast thou worn the 
crovni in Zion! It is time now for his Lordship 
to be recognized whose right it is to reign there. 

In concluding this chapter it is proper to 
point out how natural it is from the anthropology 
and Christology of Mrs. Eddy for her to make the 
claims which she does for herself as compared 
with Jesus of Nazareth. She claims equality 
with him, if not superiority over him. This is 
very natural and even necessary for one who 



Eth. 2. 7. Note. The great Jew, Maimonides, so taught. 

Cf. Pollock's Spinoza; His Life and Philosophy, p. 95. 
Cog. Met. Part 2. Chap. 7. cf. Kurzg. Am. 2. 22. (p. 97.) 



154 The Origin of Christian Science, 

holds that Jesus is divine as all men are but that 
he came to the highest possible understanding of 
truth for his age and on as far as ours when she 
herself favors humanity with the complete de- 
velopment of his system and the finality of rev- 
elation. Christian Science presents to us a trio of 
great revelators, Moses, ' Jesus, Eddy, each emit- 
ting light according to his time and place in the 
upward march of the race. Now according to the 
logic of evolution, the last is greatest. 

This makes it plain, I repeat, how Mrs. Eddy 
with the serenity of an angel of light can take a 
seat by the side of, if not above, Jesus of Nazareth. 

Mrs. Eddy says: "No person can compass 
or fulfill the individual mission of Jesus of Naza- 
reth. No person can take the place of the author 
of Science and Health, the discoverer and founder 
of Christian Science;"' "He (Jesus) expressed 
the highest type of divinity, which a fleshly form 
could express in that age ;" ' "The Ego is re- 
vealed as Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but the full 
Truth is found only in Divine Science where we 
see God as Life, Truth, and Love ;" * "If the au- 
thor of the Christian Science text-book call on this 
Board (of Directors of the First Church of Christ 
Scientist, in Boston, Mass.) for household help, 
or a handmaid, the Board shall immediately ap- 
point a proper member of the Church therefor, 



^ Cf. fif. and H. p. 200. 
^Retros. and Intros, p. 96. 
» 8. and H. p. 332. 
* Unity of Good. p. 64. 



Anthropology. 155 

and the appointee shall go immediately in obe- 
dience to the call. 'He that loveth Father or 
mother more than me is not worthy of me\" ' 

Notice in the above sentences these points: 
Mrs. Eddy claims a distinct mission for herself 
that is comparable with that of Jesus of Nazareth ; 
she suggests that Jesus' expression of divinity was 
limited by the age in which he lived; she claims 
to teach the complete truth concerning the trinity 
which she affirms was not fully revealed by Jesus 
and the Apostles in the Scriptures, that is, her rev- 
elation as to the trinity is superior to Christ's. 
She demands manual and menial service for her- 
self that Jesus never demanded for himself, but 
on the contrary rendered to others; and she does 
this, assuming the same spiritual authority over 
souls that Jesus claimed for himself. 

As a Christian who regards Jesus Christ as 
the Holy One of God and all men and women as 
poor sinners, whose hope is in his infinite super- 
iority over them, that is in his divinity, I am 
tempted to rise up in righteous indignation and 
call Mrs. Eddy's claims blasphemy. But as an 
expounder of Christian Science and as one who 
appreciates Mrs. Eddy's mental gymnastics and 
speaks as representing her, I prefer to say: 
"Hold you indignant Christian! There is no 
place in the real and true man for passion. Such 
turbulent feelings arise from ignorance, as all im- 
perfections do. It is not blasphemy at all. It is 



^Manual of the Mother Church, p, 93. 



156 The Origin of Christian Science, 

sublime understanding. It is divine metaphysics. 
When you free yourself from the illusions and 
delusions of the flesh, or learn the little trick that 
all is mind, then you also by the aid of Christ the 
way-shower, and of me the discoverer of Christian 
Science or the Holy Ghost, may take a seat along 
with us two, the male originator and the female 
finisher of real Christianity. Oh, you poor 
Christian, in bondage all your life-time to fear, 
do not be bothered about sin or blasphemy, all 
which is unreal. When Jesus used these words he 
was simply accommodating himself to the limited 
mentality of the unscientific countrymen of an 
obscure people of a materialistic age. What you 
need is to think, to think powerfully, that is meta- 
physically. And when you learn this art, before 
you even observe the process and as quick as 
thought you will find yourself on the same lofty 
summit of divine vision with us where all is mind. 
No, it is not blasphemy. It is ecstacy. It is mind 
realizing its emancipation, sitting serenely upon 
its throne and, regnant with power, smiting the 
darkness with the scepter of light. 

Again I exhort you, excited Christian, not to 
be controlled by passion but to think, to think 
calmly and imperially until all things are under- 
stood and you have peace in the consciousness of 
universal harmony. Yes, be at peace, troubled 
Christian and do not fear blasphemy. Do not 
fear anything, neither the devil for he does not 
exist; nor God, for he cannot become angry; nor 
hell, for it is subjective only, and you cast it out 



Anthropology. 157 

when you cast fear out. Just think and under- 
stand and be divine. Take my narcotic and go 
to sleep and sleep a sleep that is sweet and deep 
and *from which none ever wakes to weep.* 

But I almost forgot, pliable Christian, that 
there is one thing that you must fear. You must 
fear me. And if you happen to be a member of 
the Mother Church and I want you for a house- 
maid you must, at the order of the directors of 
said church, cease whatever you may be occupied 
with, even though it be the ascent to the summit 
of spirituality, and do menial work for me. Yes, 
for my sake you must descend again to the sphere 
of materiality ; and refusal to obey my call dooms 
you to the loss of spirituality forever. Yes, you 
presumptuous Christian, I will tell you whom you 
must fear. You must fear me, who am able to 
destroy your soul in materiality forever." 

So bent is Mrs. Eddy on creating reverence 
for herself that to accomplish this result she vio- 
lates the laws of her psychology. However, her 
claim to be equal with or even superior to Christ 
is quite logical and in perfect accord with her an- 
thropological principles. It is very convenient to 
possess that Emersonian greatness that exempts 
one from paying toll to consistency ! Simon says 
thumbs down — thumbs up, wiggle-waggle! Selah! 



CHAPTER V. 
PSYCHOLOGY. 

The psychology of a metaphysical system is its 
heart. If one thinks consistently, the laws of the 
mind become the standard for determining the 
truth and value of every principle. 

Now the Neoplatonists are quite consistent. 
They have given to the world, as has been said, 
its mightiest religio-metaphysical system. And 
Mrs. Eddy also, barring a few glaring exceptions 
that will be pointed out, is reasonably consistent 
in her psychology. The writer would be willing 
to stake the truth of his whole contention upon 
this one chapter alone. Let it be repeated that 
the parallels traced out are not only of general 
positions which might have been accidental but of 
minute thoughts and ideas in detail that are log- 
ically related and interdependent. Pointing out 
identities of this kind between two systems is 
the best possible proof that one is derived from 
the other. There is no evidence known that is so 
conclusive as this, unless it be the direct confes- 
sion of dependence. 

The most general point of similarity between 
Christian Science and Neoplatonism is the view 
that there is one and only one infinite mind. 



Psychology. 159 

Mrs. Eddy says : "In Science Mind is one;'' ' 
"The one Mind only is entitled to honor ;" ' "In- 
finite Mind cannot be limited to a finite form ;" ' 
"A limitless Mind cannot proceed from physical 
limitations. Finiteness cannot present the idea 
or the vastness of infinity;" ' "All consciousness is 
Mind, and Mind is God. Hence there is but one 
Mind ; and that one is the Infinite Good." ' 

Neoplatonism and Christian Science differ in 
this, that while the former considers the "one" or 
the "good" as the first being, and mind (nous) as 
the second in order, the latter identifies them. 
Notwithstanding this difference Mrs. Eddy's 
conception of mind is the same as that of the 
Neoplatonists. 

Plotinus makes a prolonged argument to 
prove that there is only one infinite intellect or 
mind, pointing out that if we hold that there are 
more than one, then there may be an infinite num- 
ber which he thinks is absurd. * He says also : 
"Because every part of intellect is all things, it is 
on this account infinite." ' Proclus says : "One 
all-perfect intellect is the cause of all intellects." * 
By "all intellects" he means, it seems, individual 
minds. Spinoza, following the Neoplatonists 
here as in almost all important positions, says 



^ S. and H. p. 114. 

* S. and H. p. 183. cf. p. 204. 
« 8. and H. p. 257. 

* S. and H. p. 256. cf. pp. 253 and 469. 
'^ Retros. and Intros. p. 78. 

* Cf. 2. 9. 1. 
'388 

*Prov. io (p. 69.) 



160 The Origin of Christian Science. 

that God's idea, intellect or mind, is **one" and 
"infinite," ' and that **the human mind is part of 
the infinite intellect of God." ' 

The last quotation suggests a point that we 
must take notice of, namely the relation of indi- 
vidual human minds to this one infinite universal 
mind ; for in working out this problem Mrs. Eddy 
follows the Neoplatonists. The individual human 
mind so-called is not really a mind, that is a dis- 
tinct essence existing as something other than the 
one infinite mind. It is rather an activity of the 
one infinite mind. So also when the Neoplatonists 
speak of ''partial intellects" and Spinoza speaks 
of the human intellect or mind they both mean 
God's idea or an activity of the divine mind. 

Mrs. Eddy says: ''All that really exists is 
the divine mind and its idea ;" ^ "We run into er- 
ror when we divide Soul into souls, multiply Mind 
into minds." * So Mrs. Eddy does not permit us 
to speak of our minds or souls. She will allow us 
to have neither bodies nor souls. God is the one 
infinite and only soul. We are activities or ideas 
of that soul. Recall Mrs. Eddy's definition of 
man: "God's spiritual idea, individual, perfect, 
eternal." * This it will be understood is the defi- 
nition of immortal or real man. Mortal man or 
mortal mind does not exist. ' 



* Cf. Etn. 2. 4. 

^Eth. 2. 11. Corollary, cf. Letter, 15. 
» fif. and H. p. 151. cf. pp. 331 and 71. 

* 8, and H. p. 249f. cf. pp. 114 and 466. 
« 8. and H. p. 115. 

« Cf. 8. and H. p. 103. cf. p. 591. 



Psychology. 161 

Plato's "eternal world of ideas" forms a 
background for this speculation. Windelband, ex- 
plaining how the Neoplatonists developed the doc- 
trine of their master, says: "Ideas appear no 
longer as self-subsistent essences (as they did 
with Plato), but as elements constituting the con- 
tent of intellectual or spiritual activity; and, while 
they still remain for human cognition something 
given and determining, they become original 
thoughts of God." ' Now when we remember that 
the Neoplatonists are idealists and hold that all 
reality is in the intelligible world we are prepared 
to see how Mrs. Eddy does nothing more in this 
matter than reproduce them. 

Plotinus says: "It (intellect) produces in 
itself an offspring, and at the same time is con- 
scious of containing this progeny in itself;" ' "One 
intellect subsists as comprehending all others." ' 
Proclus says : "Ideas are not separated from in- 
tellect, subsisting by themselves apart from it." ' 
Spinoza is quite as explicit as Mrs. Eddy. He 
says: "The idea, which constitutes the actual 
being of the human mind, is not simple, but com- 
pounded of a great number of ideas ;" ' "There is 
in the mind no absolute faculty of understand- 
ing ;" ' The "understanding" is "nothing beyond in- 



^Hist. of Phil. 2. 2. 19. 4. 
2 6. 7. 35. 
8 4. 8. 3. 

*6n Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I, p. 331.) cf. Bk. 5. (Vol. II. p. 340.) 
and Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 215.) cf. also Synesius, Dreams, 5. 
'Eth. 2. 15. 
" Eth. 2. 48. Note. 



162 The Origin of Christian Science. 

dividual * * * ideas/' ' By '^understanding" 
(intellectus) Spinoza means that part of the mind 
which is real and eternal, just what Mrs. Eddy 
means by "immortal Mind/* 

The far reaching import in a philosophic sys- 
tem of the theory just given may be easily seen. 
The human mind is related to the divine mind as 
an idea of the human mind is considered as being 
related to the human mind. But as there is no 
human mind in reality the ideas that we are in the 
habit of ascribing to it are in fact ideas of the 
divine mind. So our thoughts and ideas, when we 
really think and form ideas, are caused by the 
divine mind and partake of its qualities. Human 
thinking is divine thinking. The pantheistic 
character of both systems has hitherto been 
proved. We have here a parallel between defin- 
ing lines of the two systems. 

To make doubly plain and positive this point 
let Mrs. Eddy and Proclus speak again. She 
says: "All that really exists is the divine mind 
and its idea;'*' "When we fully understand our 
relation to the Divine, we can have no other Mind 
but His ;" * "Every function of the real man is 
governed by the divine Mind ;" ' "There is but one 
I, or Us, but one divine Principle, or Mind, gov- 
erning all existence." ' 

Proclus says: "It (intellect or mind) is not 



1 Eth. 2. 49. Corollary. Proof. 
^ 8. and H. p. 151. 
» 8. and H. p. 205f. 
* 8. and H. p. 151. 
'8. and H. p. 588. 



Psychology, 163 

the cause of things which at one time exist and at 
another time not, but it is the cause of things 
which always exist." ' Intellectual conceptions 
or ideas constitute all those things that eternally 
exist. So then the infinite mind is the cause of 
all ideas or thoughts. Plotinus had already taught 
the same doctrine. He says : "Intellect * * * 
contains all real existences in itself * * * as 
though they were its own self, and it were one 
with them." ' Real existences are ideas, all ideas, 
and these are so in the one infinite mind as to be 
one with it. All ideas, whether considered as 
belonging to and originating in an individual 
mind or not, are in reality the progeny and effects 
of this one infinite mind. 

Spinoza stated this Neoplatonic doctrine 
more plainly and positively than even his masters 
did and in better terms than does Mrs. Eddy. As 
in our mind there is no faculty of understanding, 
since it is nothing more than the sum of the ideas 
that we designate as ours, our ideas must be 
caused either by the infinite mind of which they 
are activities or by outward objects. The latter 
view is of course impossible with idealists. So 
Spinoza says: ''The actual being of ideas owns 
God as its cause, only in so far as he is considered 
as a thinking thing, not in so far as he is unfolded 
in any other attribute ; that is, the ideas both of the 
attributes of God and of particular things do not 



* Theo. Ele. 172. ' 5. 9. 6. Tr. by Fuller. 



164 The Origin of Christian Science, 

own as their efficient cause their objects (ideata) 
or the things perceived, but God himself in so far 
as he is a thinking thing." ^ 

Stated simply the parallel just drawn is this: 
the Neoplatonists, Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy all 
agree in the view that the ideas of the human 
mind are caused by the divine mind and are really 
divine ideas. It will be recalled that we proved 
that Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy deny free agency to 
man and also affirm his divinity. The logical 
consistency of Christian Science and Spinozaism 
as determined by Neoplatonism is beautiful. 

This is a good place to explain a difference 
between the psychology of the Neoplatonists and 
that of Mrs. Eddy. The Neoplatonists following 
Plato recognized three distinct kinds of knowl- 
edge, while Mrs. Eddy recognizes only two. After 
sensation, which both reject as not belonging real- 
ly to the category of knowledge, the Neoplatonists 
would put in the first class such mental activities 
or states as imagination, memory, and opinion or 
belief; in the second class discursive reason; in 
the third and highest class, intellectual conscious- 
ness or intuition. This theory of knowledge has had 
a mighty influence upon the world. It gave to the 
"old" psychology its general character and is re- 
lated to the trichotomous theory of human nature. 

The metaphysical basis for this psychology is 
the theory of the existence of three hypostases or 
principles, mind, soul and matter. In mind which 

"^Etn. 2. 5. 



Psychology. 165 

is a superior hypostasis to soul there is the high- 
est or third kind of knowledge and only this. In 
soul, as such, there is discursive reason or ratio- 
cination and only this. But in a soul which is 
related to finite body and limited by it, we have 
the inferior activities that constitute the first kind 
of knowledge. Now since Mrs. Eddy does not 
recognize soul as something other than mind but 
posits only one hypostasis, designated as mind or 
soul or by some synonym for them, she has only 
two general classes of knowledge. Discursive 
reason since it is a mental process in which the ele- 
ment of time enters she must class with the lower 
kind of knowledge. The knowledge of "immor- 
tal Mind" or real knowledge with Mrs. Eddy cor- 
responds exactly to the highest or third kind of 
knowledge of the Neoplatonists. It is intuitive 
knowledge or intellectual knowledge. All lower 
forms of knowledge constitute the class of un- 
real knowledge. They are activities of mortal 
mind which does not exist. With Mrs. Eddy 
there are no grades in knowledge. If one has 
knowledge he has perfect knowledge. Notwith- 
standing this great divergence from the Neopla- 
tonists in metaphysics, Mrs. Eddy follows them 
closely in psychology. Spinoza too had the Neo- 
platonic theory of knowledge but was a dichotom- 
ist. So when we find that they are beholden to 
the Neoplatonists for their psychology, their slav- 
ery to them is the more certainly demonstrated. 

But before proceeding further I wish to re- 
mark that this want of a metaphysical basis for 



166 The Origin of Christian Science. 

her psychology renders Mrs. Eddy's system hope- 
less. It is on a foundation of sand. Her system 
will not stand the psychological test. She denies 
that the body affects or limits in any way the 
mind. She of course denies that matter can have 
sensations ' or think or form ideas. She main- 
tains that the mind has perfect knowledge only. 
Whence then are all these imperfect mental 
states? In what hypostasis or nature do they 
inhere ? "In reality there is no mortal mind/' "" 
she says. Then if there is nothing to give birth 
to false notions, they cannot and do not exist. 
Nor can the supposition that they exist be possi- 
ble, for there is no mind that can have this false 
supposition. * 

Mrs. Eddy says there is no sickness because 
matter is unreal; and that the cure to be per- 
formed is simply banishing the notion that one is 
sick, which is a false belief. But now since there 
is nothing to cause a false belief to be and nothing 
in which it can be, no false belief exists. So there 
is no more need to cure false notions than rheu- 
matic joints, for neither exists. Mrs. Eddy's 
propaganda is a war against what does not exist. 
By its own confession it is a useless enterprise. 
If we do not need medicine because there is no 
body to have disease, we do not need books or 
teachers to help us get rid of notions that we do 
not have. 



* Cf. S. and H. pp. 467 and 81. 

» S. and H. p. 103. cf. p. 114. cf. p. 151. 

» Cf. 8. and H. p. 487. 



Psychology. 167 

All psychologists will readily see that in this 
we have an inconsistency stupendous and destruc- 
tive, to which the only reply that Christian Scien- 
tists can give is the Emersonian sneer that *'a fool- 
ish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."' 

It is interesting to notice that Spinoza's psy- 
chology had the same defect. He says we know 
only two of the attributes of God, thought and 
extension, or mind and matter, and that neither 
limits or affects the other; and yet he has the 
three grades or classes of knowledge, ' the inferior 
kinds of which are determined by the passivity of 
the mind; and he often speaks of the mind being 
passive. To what is it passive? To matter? 
No. To the divine mind? But its highest knowledge 
arises thereby. You cannot find an answer to this 
question in all that he has written. His psychology 
lacks a metaphysical basis, as does Mrs. Eddy's. 

It is not so with the Neoplatonists. They are 
profounder thinkers than Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy 
and give a better explanation of human life. Spi- 
noza's treatment of the human mind is mechan- 
ical and crude; Mrs. Eddy's is more so. Before 
she analyzes the rose, she causes its color and odor 
to fade away and extracts its sap and life. After 
eliminating all the elements of the human mind 
that she does not know what to do with, it is rath- 
er easy to dispose of the rest. On account of this 
crushing defect, which the genius of Mrs. Eddy 
either did not see or could not remedy, it is safe 



^ In his essay, Self-reliance. 
2 Cf. Eth. 2. 40. Note 2. cf. 3. 2. 



168 The Origin of Christian Science, 

to say that her system can never command the in- 
tellectual respect of psychologists. 

Now let us consider the nature of Mrs. Eddy's 
"immortal Mind'* and analyze its knowledge. We 
shall find that here the author of Christian 
Science with scarcely any side-stepping follows 
the curious tracks of the Neoplatonists. Her con- 
ception of "immortal Mind" is the same as their 
conception of the nous or infinite intellect and her 
analysis of the knowledge of "immortal Mind" 
corresponds to their analysis of the knowledge of 
their infinite intellect. 

We need not be troubled to distinguish be- 
tween the activity of the one infinite mind and 
that of individual minds inasmuch as individual 
minds so-called, as we have explained, are rather 
activities of the one infinite mind. Our knowl- 
edge, when it is real knowledge or understanding, 
is in fact the knowledge of the divine mind. This 
is a parallel belonging to the pantheistic nature of 
the systems that need not be traced out again. 
The student, however, should notice that it is a 
parallel of fundamental value. 

Mrs. Eddy teaches that "immortal Mind" is 
ever active, never passive. This subject in its re- 
lation to the nature of God, since Mrs. Eddy iden- 
tifies God and mind, was treated in the chapter on 
Theology. But it is necessary to introduce it here 
also to show its psychological import. It is the 
source of the time-honored theory that mind is 
ever conscious and is in fact this theory. It is as 
old as Neoplatonism and, it seems, originated in it. 



Psychology, 1Q\) 

Mrs. Eddy says: ''Immortal Mind is ever 
active ;" ' "Spirit * * * understands all 
things * h: * aj^(j ig gygj. conscious." ' She 
defines intelligence thus: ''Substance; self- 
existent and eternal Mind ; that which is never un- 
conscious nor limited," ' and says that "intelli- 
gence never passes into non-intelligence." * 

Plotinus says: "It is necessary, however, 
to consider intellect, truly socalled neither as in- 
tellect in capacity, nor as proceeding from the pri- 
vation to the possession of intellect ;" ^ "The en- 
ergy of intellect is the same with its essence," * 
and "intellect * * * exists in energy." ' This 
is the same as saying that the activity of intellect 
or mind is as constant as its being, which is an- 
other way of saying that mind is ever active. 
Spinoza will not "admit that there is such a thing 
as intellect in potentiality," ' and holds that "God's 
intellect is entirely actual, and not at all poten- 
tial," and is identical with "God's essence." ' 

Since Mrs. Eddy identifies mind and God and 
since, as I have shown in the chapter on Theology, 
both systems agree as to the doctrine of God being 
ever in the active state, I need not here trace 
further this parallel. 

The knowledge of "immortal Mind" arises 
within it; it is not adventitious. So teach the 



^ S'. and H. p. 387. « 5. 9. 5. 

^ 8. and H. p. 250. « 1. 4. 10. 

^8. and H. p. 588. cf. No ' 5. 9. 7. cf. 2. 9. 1. 

and Yes. p. 25. « EtU. 1. 31. Note. 

^8. and H. p. 336. "" EtJi. 1. 33. Note 2. 



170 The Origin of Christian Science. 

Neoplatonists as to the knowledge of intellect. 
Mrs. Eddy says : "How are veritable ideas to be 
distinguished from illusions? By learning the 
origin of each. Ideas are emanations from the 
divine Mind. Thoughts proceeding from the brain 
or from matter are offshoots of mortal mind." ' 
Referring to Webster she defines idea as "the im- 
mediate object of understanding.'" This definition 
is Platonic. Its terms differentiate it sharply from 
an empirical definition of ideas. Mrs. Eddy, like 
Spinoza, * distinguishes ideas from images. Now 
Mrs. Eddy considers that ideas constitute all real 
knowledge. So all true knowledge arises in the 
mind itself and not by means of anything without. 
Plotinus speaking of intellect says: "It 
likewise does not extend itself to the objects of its 
perception as if it did not possess them, or as if it 
acquired them externally, or obtained them by a 
discursive process, as if they were not already 
present with it ;" ' "If such an intellect, however, 
has not an adventitious intellection, whatever it 
intellectually perceives, it perceives from itself." ' 
Spinoza defines an idea as a "mental conception 
which is formed by the mind as a thinking thing," 
and explains that he uses the word "conception" 
rather than "perception" because the former ex- 
presses better the activity of the mind." Spinoza, 
like Mrs. Eddy, contends that "body cannot de- 
termine mind to think." ' 

*5. 9. 7. 

1 8. and H. p. 88. ' 5. 9. 5. 

2 8. and H. p. 115. « Eth. 2. Def. 3. 
'Cf. Eth. 2. 49. Corollary. Note.'' Eth. 3. 2. 



Psychology. 171 

As has been suggested by certain quotations 
already given the ideas of ''immortal Mind" are to 
be regarded as eternal. They are not subject to 
time relations or limitations. The Neoplatonists 
held the same to be true of the ideas or thoughts of 
intellect. They all are eternal. Knowledge of 
time and its relations is inferior and limited 
knowledge. 

Mrs. Eddy says: "Ideas are spiritual, har- 
monious and eternal ;" ' "The spiritual idea, whose 
substance is in Mind, is eternal ;" ' It is the pre- 
rogative of the ever-present, divine Mind, and of 
thought which is in rapport with this Mind to 
know the past, the present, and the future." ' She 
does not mean that the past, present and future 
are known as specifications, or demarcations of 
time, but as constituting one eternity ; or that the 
past, present and future are alike real and pres- 
ent to such mind and thought. 

Plotinus says that intellect "intellectually 
perceives, however, eternally ;" ' Ideas "are gen- 
erated, indeed, so far as they have a principle of 
their subsistence ; but they are not generated (ac- 
cording to the usual acceptation of the term) be- 
cause they have not a temporal beginning * * * 
but they always are, in the same manner as the 
world which is there" ^ (intelligible world or world 



1 8. and H. p. 88. 
» S. and H. p. 267. 
» 8. and H. p. 84. 

*6. 7. 35. cf. 5. 1. 4.; 5. 9. 5.; 5. 9. 6. and 5. 9. 7. 
"2. 4. 5. cf. Proclus, Theo. Ele. 169. and On Tim. Bk. 5. (Vol. 
II. p. 340.) 



172 The Origin of Christian Science. 

of ideas). Spinoza says: "Our mind, in so far 
as it understands, is an eternal mode of thinking/" 
We can see clearly that Plato's "eternal world of 
ideas" forms a background for this doctrine as it 
does for so much that is in Christian Science. 
Plato made Christian Science possible. 

That there are ideas of our mind that do not 
take cognizance of temporal relations and whose 
nature is eternal, that is, ideas without a temporal 
origin, is a very striking theory in itself. There- 
fore, if we find a woman repeating it 1600 years 
after it was originated, the conclusion is obvious 
without being stated. 

Mrs. Eddy's "immortal Mind" does not err 
and does not know error. Its knowledge is per- 
fect and it has a knowledge of perfection only. 
She says: "Nothing that Vorketh or maketh 
a lie' is to be found in the divine consciousness ;" ' 
"In the universe of Truth matter is unknown. 
No supposition of error enters there ;" ' "Incor- 
poreal, unerring, immortal, and eternal Mind;"* 
"Because immortal sense has no error of sense, 
it has no sense of error ;" ^ "Spirit is all-know- 
ing," ' and "understands all things." ' One ac- 
quainted with Christian Science will see readily 
how radical such a theory is when it is consistent- 



^Etn. 5. 40. Note. 

'2^0 and Yes. p. 24. cf. 8. and H. p. 70. 

» iS. and H. p. 503. 

* 8. and H. p. 588. 

» 8. and H. p. 210. cf. ISfo and Yes. pp. 39 and 45. 

• 8. and H. p. 487. 
' 8. and H. p. 250. 



Psychology. 173 

ly worked out, as is the case in Christian Science. 
Sin, sickness, disease and death are in the same 
class with error. They all are a result of sup- 
posing matter to be real. Mind or God does not 
know any of these things. To the divine mind all 
is light and there is no darkness at all, and so it 
should be to us. God not only does not make mis- 
takes but does not know that any are made. 

But this daring denial of such knowledge to 
the divine mind or infinite intellect is the doctrine 
of the Neoplatonists. They hold as we have seen 
that intellect exists in activity and not in capacity 
and that that which exists in activity is perfect, 
while that which exists in capacity is imperfect. 
So if there be such a thing as error it is not in in- 
tellect. The Neoplatonists and Mrs. Eddy are 
strict metaphysical monists and cannot allow the 
existence of contradictory realities. All reality 
is in and of mind. Therefore error must be un- 
real or what to them is the same thing, non- 
mental. It is not in mind or intellect. To think 
it even would be like thinking there is darkness in 
light, which is in fact unthinkable. Since then 
intellect is ever active and ever conscious and 
since all ideas are in intellect which is all-perfect,' 
its knowledge also is perfect. Error is privation 
or the absence of intellect. 

Remember Plato's "eternal world of ideas," 
or world of paradigms, in which all reality exists 
and where there is nothing that is unreal and 



^Cf. Proclus in Prov. 10. (p. 69.) 



174 The Origin of Christian Science: 

where also there are no inharmonious or contra- 
dictory principles. Proclus assigns error to that 
part of the mind which is under the limitation of 
matter and classes it with evil as does Mrs. Eddy. 
He says: ''What evil is in action, that the false 
is in knowledge" and that error is ''the privation 
of intellect in opinion." ' When this language is 
understood it will be seen that it has the same 
meaning as Mrs. Eddy's. Plotinus says : "There 
is no paradigm of evil there (intelligible world or 
world of ideas) . For evil here (in the world of 
things and sense) happens from indigence, priva- 
tion, and defect." ' Proclus says the same is true 
of error. And then he says error is to be re- 
ferred to opinion. Now opinion is a mental state 
or activity that is the result of passivity to matter, 
as we shall see, and so error, according to Proclus, 
as according to Mrs. Eddy, does not exist in the 
understanding but is to be referred to matter as 
its cause, and is that kind of mental state that is 
explained by passivity to matter. 

Spinoza repeats the doctrine of the Neopla- 
tonists in language most explicit. He says: 
"There is nothing positive in ideas, which causes 
them to be called false ;" ^ "Falsity consists in a 
privation of knowledge," * and a true idea is re- 
lated to a false idea as "being to non-being." ' He 
challenges his opponent to "demonstrate that evil. 



iQn Tim. Bk. 5. (Vol. II. p. 447.) 

^5. 9. 10. 

^Eth. 2. 33. 

*Etn. 2. 35. 

" Eth. 2. 43. Note. cf. 2. 49. Note. 



Psychology. 175 

error, crime, etc., have any positive existence." ' 
Again he says: ''All ideas, in so far as they are 
referred to God, are true." ' He means ideas that 
originate in and exist in the divine mind. We 
have seen that Spinoza teaches that God created 
all that is in his intellect. If then error is naught, 
it is not in his intellect, that is, he does not recog- 
nize it as existing. All God's ideas are true, real 
and perfect and by virtue of their existence create 
their objects. Therefore there is not in the divine 
mind the idea of error, since that would make er- 
ror real. 

The Christian Science trinity has already 
been discussed. But as it is grounded in Mrs. 
Eddy's psychology we should here scrutinize it 
again. Remember that Christian Science is a 
form of idealism. The mind has its object within 
itself. The knowing subject and the known ob- 
ject are therefore identical. Now we have seen 
also that the essence and energy of such a mind 
are the same. So the act of knowing by which 
the knowing subject and the known object are 
united as one is itself the same as either or both 
of these. The three best Neoplatonic words for 
these three elements of the trinity are intellect, 
intelligible and intelligence. While Mrs. Eddy is 
not so technical as we could wish, in her selec- 
tion of terms, her psychology corresponds per- 
fectly with that of the Neoplatonists. 

Several quotations given in the previous 
chapter are here repeated. Mrs. Eddy says: 



Letter 36. cf. Letter, 32. ' Eth. 2. 32. cf. 3. 1. Proof. 



176 The Origin of Christian Science, 

"Firmament, or understanding, united Principle 
to its idea. Life and Intelligence, this Principle; 
idea, the universe and man." ' As has been ob- 
served, Mrs. Eddy's terms are somewhat confus- 
ing but the meaning is clear. There are three ele- 
ments: the thinking subject, principle, life or in- 
telligence, which of course is mind; the object of 
thought, idea ; and the understanding, or the men- 
tal act of thinking, by which the subject and the 
object are united. 

Plotinus says: "Intellect, intelligence, and 
the intelligible are one and the same thing.*' ' 
Plotinus uses the term intelligence for the act of 
thinking. Proclus says: "Since thinking is the 
medium between that which thinks and the ob- 
ject of thought, and these are the same, thinking 
likewise will be the same with each." ' 

Let the student's attention be directed again 
to the fact that this psychological trinity of the 
Neoplatonists and Mrs. Eddy is germane to what 
may be called the cosmological trinity or the theo- 
logical trinity of Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy of which 
we have before spoken. We also showed that 
this theological but non-Biblical trinity had its 
beginning with the theologian Synesius, who was 
a Neoplatonic thinker rather than a Biblical ex- 
egete. If the subject is not clear to the reader, 
review the discussion of this topic in the previous 
chapter. The attempt to explain the sublime but 



* S. and H. First Edition, p. 230. 

^6. 7. 41. cf. 5. 1. 4. cf. Porphyry, Aux. 44. 

^TJieo. Ele. 169. 



Psychology. 177 

mysterious personal trinity of the Bible by means 
of this pagan speculation, as many unbelieving 
and a few believing theologians have done, is a 
specimen of scholastic sophistry, exploited as a 
precious finding from deep digging in the Scrip- 
tures. It is on the contrary a travesty on sane 
exegesis. As an orthodox Christian my blood is 
made to boil at such an accommodation of the sa- 
cred Scriptures. Its only reason for existence is 
that it ministers to human pride which the Bibli- 
cal trinity causes to wither to the roots. 

It will be seen that this psychological trinity 
is also the foundation for the rational mysticism 
in which Mrs. Eddy reproduces the Neoplatonists. 

The writer was surprised to find in Science 
and Health a parallel to a very curious position as 
to knowledge found in the Neoplatonists. It is 
that the highest kind of knowledge or the knowl- 
edge of infinite intellect is that which proceeds 
from cause to effect, not from effect to cause. 

Mrs. Eddy says: "We reason imperfectly 
from effect to cause, when we conclude that mat- 
ter is the effect of Spirit; but a priori reasoning 
shows material existence to be enigmatical. Spirit 
gives the true mental idea * * * Reasoning 
from cause to effect in the Science of Mind, we 
begin with Mind, which must be understood 
through the idea which expresses it and cannot 
be learned from its opposite, matter. Thus we 
arrive at Truth, or intelligence, which evolves its 
own unerring idea and never can be co-ordinate 



178 The Origin of Christian Science, 

with human illusions ;" ' ''We may as well im- 
prove our time by solving the mysteries of being 
through an apprehension of divine Principle." ' 

It will throw light on the language of these 
quotations to consider that Mrs. Eddy is thinking 
of the first cause of all as including within itself 
all effects. She is thinking of cause and effects 
under the "form of eternity" as Spinoza would ex- 
press it, ' not under the form of time. She is 
thinking of mind as comprehending all things, as 
a given object necessarily includes its essential 
qualities. In this sense it is evident that to know 
the cause is to know with certainty the effect. 
It is, however, using the words, cause and effect, 
in a sense not found in logic and common speech, 
where it is understood that an element of time, 
though it may be so small as to be imperceptible, 
intervenes between them. The idea of a cause 
that requires time to realize itself in its effect, is 
of course not an idea of ''immortal Mind" which 
thinks only eternally. 

This is a doctrine of the Neoplatonists. But 
first let us hear Spinoza who is so often the me- 
dium between them and Mrs. Eddy. He says: 
"As regards a true idea, we have shown that it is 
simple or compounded of simple ideas * * * 
and that its subjective effects in the soul corre- 
spond to the actual reality of its object. This 
conclusion is identical with the saying of the an- 



* /S. and H. p. 467f. 

2 S. and H. p. 90. 

' Cf. Etn. 2. 44. Corollary, 2. 



Psychology. 179 

cients that true science proceeds from cause to 
effect." ' In this connection Spinoza understands 
the ''true idea" to be an idea of infinite intellect 
and that "true science" is true knowledge or the 
knowledge of this intellect. It seems certain that 
by ''ancients" he means the Neoplatonists, who 
are described accurately by his language. 

Proclus says: "The knowledge of causes is 
the work of Science (real knowledge), and we 
are then said to know scientifically when we know 
the causes of things ;" ' "It is evident that this 
which knows according to the one, knows so far as 
the similar is known by the similar, I mean so far 
as that which proceeds from a cause is known by 
its cause." ' He explains that ''to know according 
to the one" is "one knowledge both of universals 
and individuals," "the power of knowing all 
things," a knowledge in which there is "no greater 
knowledge of wholes than of parts." "Knowing 
according to the one" means simply understand- 
ing all things to be in one principle or cause. This 
is knowing the effect by the cause when the ele- 
ment of time is eliminated. This kind of knowl- 
edge then is the same as Spinoza's "simple idea" 
which always affirms something of a thing which 
is "contained in the concept we have formed of 
that thing." * Spinoza says expressly that "the 
knowledge of an effect through its cause is the 
same thing as the knowledge of a particular prop- 

Ump. of the Und. p. 32. cf. Eth. 2. 4. 

^ Theo. Ele. 11. The parenthetical words are the writer's. 
^Prov. 1. (p. 6.) cf. 10. (p. 72.) cf. Plotinus 5. 3. 7. 
*Imp. of the Und. p. 27, cf. p. 32. 



180 The Origin of Christian Science. 

erty of a cause." ' Now when this simple idea 
is the idea of God who is the cause of all things, 
conceived under the *^form of eternity," we have 
what the "ancients" called "knowledge according 
to the one" or knowledge of an effect through its 
cause, and this Spinoza considered to be the high- 
est kind of knowledge, intuitive consciousness, ' or 
the knowledge of infinite intellect only. It is 
much like what Kant calls a priori knowledge. 

For Mrs. Eddy to repeat this curious and 
most subtle speculation of the "ancients" is a very 
incriminating fact. 

At this point the students' attention is called 
to the primary importance of the above psycholog- 
ical positions. I hope he will see that they are 
fundamental to much that has been said as to the 
nature of God, the nature of the world and the 
nature of man. One's psychology is basic in his 
system, especially when it is idealism. The logi- 
cal consistency of both Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy in 
applying Neoplatonic psychology to Christ has 
striking significence and peculiarly argumenta- 
tive force in establishing this thesis. This com- 
pletes what we have to say on the first phase of 
the subject of psychology. 

We are now to take up certain specific men- 
tal activities which Mrs. Eddy classifies as in- 
ferior knowledge. Her treatment of them is Neo- 
platonic. Let us not forget that this kind of 
knowledge, if in truth according to Mrs. Eddy it 



^Theo.-Pol. Treat. Chap. 4. (p. 59.) 
2 Cf. Eth. 2. 40. Note 2. 



Psychology. 181 

be knowledge at all, is the knowledge of "mortal 
mind." Whether it be real or not Mrs. Eddy 
recognizes it as being what it may be and so deals 
with it. In the same manner we will deal with it. 
The Neoplatonists explain inferior kinds of knowl- 
edge as belonging to the soul, which they arranged 
below mind, as arising on account of the soul's 
passivity to matter. Notwithstanding this dif- 
ference between Mrs. Eddy and the Neoplatonists, 
she follows them in classifying and disposing of 
these examples of inferior knowledge. This is 
not strange, since Spinoza, who also did not recog- 
nize the hypostasis of soul, followed the Neopla- 
tonists here also. 

As ''immortal Mind" thinks eternally or as all 
its ideas are eternal, the idea of time must be in 
mortal mind. Mrs. Eddy defines time thus: 
"Mortal measurements; limits, in which are 
summed up all human acts, thoughts, beliefs, opin- 
ions, knowledge; matter; error; that which be- 
gins before, and continues after, what is termed 
death, until the mortal disappears and spiritual 
perfection appears." ' She says : "Time is a 
mortal thought."'' Bear in mind that Mrs. Eddy 
considers that time is a sphere of limitation in 
which imperfect mental acts take place and that 
it ceases before we enter into perfection or eter- 
nity. She does not consider that time is any part 
of eternity as we have before shown. Imperfect 



* 8. and H. p. 595. 

* 8. and H. p. 598. 



182 The Origin of Christian Science. 

things or thoughts exist in time, perfect ones ex- 
ist in eternity. 

Let it be fully appreciated that every con- 
ception involving the notion of time is according 
to Mrs. Eddy imperfect and does not belong to 
"immortal Mind.'' This means that a host of 
mental acts such as imagination, memory, pur- 
pose, desire, faith, opinion, hope and reasoning 
are to be considered inferior states of mind and 
that too when they are in harmony with the facts 
of existence. We rise in the scale of being as we 
are freed from these mental states. They are 
human knowledge or activities of mortal mind. 

This is the psychology of the Neoplatonists. 
Eternity has to do with the world that is; time 
with the world that is becoming but is not. The 
former is one, perfect and infinite, the other is 
plural, imperfect and finite. 

Plotinus speaking of the intelligible world, or 
world of ideas, says : "Instead of time, however, 
eternity is there." ' The meaning is that intel- 
lect or infinite mind has no idea of time. He 
says again : "The Sciences of intelligibles * * * 
understand indeed nothing sensible." ' Proclus, 
following Plato closely, says: "Everything gen- 
erated therefore is apprehended by opinion in 
conjunction with sense." ' In Neoplatonism "gen- 
erated things" are such as exist in time. Spinoza, 
following the Neoplatonists, contends that all 



^5. 9. 10. 
2 5. 9. 7. 

» On Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 211.) 



Psychology. 183 

knowledge of things in relation to time comes to 
us by means of the imagination and not by means 
of the intellect. ' 

One is much surprised when he first studies 
Christian Science to discover that Mrs. Eddy min- 
imizes faith. The Bible makes faith a necessary 
condition of mind for salvation. It is not so in 
Christian Science in which understanding pro- 
cures salvation. Mrs. Eddy is consistent in this 
and is working out her system ; for salvation with 
her means something wholly different from what 
it means in the Bible, as will be shown later. But 
here we are concerned with the psychological par- 
allel only. 

Mrs. Eddy says: "If Christian Science dis- 
honors human belief, it honors spiritual under- 
standing ;" ' ''Belief is less than understanding. 
Belief involves theories of material hearing, sight, 
touch, taste, and smell, termed the five senses ;" ' 
"Spirit is all-knowing; this precludes the need of 
believing * * * fpj^g believer and belief are 
one and are mortal ;" * "Error is the basis of all 
belief. We need instead a true idea, based on the 
understanding of God ;" ' "Belief constitutes mis- 
takes, understanding never errs." ^ 

Notice in the above quotations these points: 
beliefs or faith is inferior to understanding; it 



^Ct.Eth. 2. 44; Letter, 29. Eth. 5. 29. 

» 8. and H. p. 183. 

*8. and H. p. 526. 

* S. and H. p. 487. cf. p. 569. 

»/Sf. and H. First Edition, p. 20. 

« /S. and H. First Edition, p. 21. 



184 The Origin of Christian Science. 

arises from sensation or from a material source; 
it is a mental state that we should rise above; it 
is a mental activity in which error resides. 
Christian Scientists say of one who is sick that 
he has a ''belief,'' 

This theory as to faith has its origin with 
Plato who identifies faith and opinion, ' which as 
psychological states are of course the same. 

Plotinus says : ''Sense, and not intellect, will 
have an apprehension of things external; and if 
you are willing to grant it, this will also be the 
case with the dianoetic power and opinion." ^ The 
"dianoetic power" is the power of discursive rea- 
son or inference. Now notice that he says that 
both this power and opinion are like sense in that 
they have to do with external things, that is, these 
activities of the mind arise from its being affect- 
ed by external objects. 

Proclus follows Plotinus. ' Spinoza follows 
Proclus. * 

Proclus explaining the source of error says it 
"subsists in the doxastic part" of the soul ; that is, 
in the opinion-forming part. ' And Spinoza ex- 
plains error as arising in the same mental act. 
He explains distinctly that error arises from the 
imagination but that imagination as such does not 



1 Cf. Republic. Bk. 6. Sections 509-511. cf. Prof. Paul Shorey's 
discussion of Plato's psychological terminology, in 
Unity of Plato's Thought, p. 47f. 

^ 5. 3. 1. cf. 5. 9. 7." 3. 6. 4.' 6. 9. 3. 

»Cf. On Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 188.); Prov. 1. (p. 3.); On 
Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 209.); Theo. Ele. 123. 

* Cf. Eth. 2. 40. Note 2. and Imp. of the Und. p. 8. ff. 

»0n Tim. Bk. 5. (Vol. II. p. 446f.) 



Psychology. 185 

contain error; accordingly error is simply false 
opinion. ' 

In explaining Mrs. Eddy's conception of God 
we showed that she eliminated will from his na- 
ture. Here we need a word more as to the psy- 
chology of will. Will as designating purpose is a 
mental state that recognizes the element of time 
and as such it is an imperfect state and belongs 
to mortal mind. 

Mrs. Eddy says: ''Human will belongs to 
the so-called material senses, and its use is to be 
condemned;" ' ''Will-power is capable of all evil." ' 

I do not find this doctrine taught so distinctly 
in Neoplatonism though it is involved in it, but it 
is set forth emphatically by Spinoza. Will as an 
act of preference or decision he recognizes as 
something worthy, but this he identifies with 
the understanding and so treats of it. He says: 
"There is in the mind no volition or affirmation 
and negation, save that which an idea, isasmuch as 
it is an idea, involves." * Will, as purpose or wish, 
is an inferior mental state, the result of temporal 
limitations of the mind, and has no place in the 
understanding. ' 

The reader may examine with profit certain 
proof-texts given in the chapter on Theology. 



1 Cf. Etn. 2. 40. Note 2. and 2. 41 with Eth. 2. 17. He says 
that error occurs only in the first kind of knowledge, to 
which belongs, as he specifies, imagination and opinion. 

^ 8. and H. p. 144. 

» 8. and H. p. 206. 

*Eth. 2. 49. 

«Cf. Eth. 1. Appendix. 



186 The Origin of Christian Science. 

Very interesting indeed is Mrs. Eddy's exact 
reproduction of the Neoplatonic treatment of the 
act of reasoning or inference-forming power of 
the mind. This is the power of learning one truth 
from another, which is not contained in that other 
truth. It arises from external objects ; it is medi- 
ate, transitive knowledge involving the element 
of time ; and though it may lead us to the truth it 
is inferior to the highest knowledge, understand- 
ing or intuitive consciousness, the knowledge of 
which is immediate and intransitive. It is some- 
think like what Kant calls a posteriori knowledge. 
One is surprised to find Mrs. Eddy repeating this 
curious psychology of the Neoplatonists, though 
as has been said there is no ground for it in her 
metaphysics. 

She says: "Evidence drawn from the five 
physical senses relates solely to human reason; 
and because of opacity to the true light, human 
reason dimly reflects and feebly transmits Jesus' 
works and words. Truth is a revelation." ' No- 
tice in this quotation that she says that human 
reason has to do with evidence drawn from the 
five senses; that it does give us a knowledge of 
the teaching of Jesus though it does it by means 
of an imperfect process and that it is inferior to 
that power by which truth comes to the mind 
by revelation. By revelation she means intuition 
as we shall see. 

Again Mrs. Eddy says : "Reason is the most 
active human faculty. Let that inform the senti- 



^ 8. and H. p. 117. 



Psychology, 187 

ments and awaken the man's dormant sense of 
moral obligation, and by degrees he will learn the 
nothingness of the pleasures of human sense and 
the grandeur and bliss of a spiritual sense, which 
silences the material or corporeal. Then he not 
only will be saved, but is saved ;" ' **He who is All, 
understands All. He can have no knowledge or 
inference but His own consciousness." ' As to 
these quotations notice that she says that reason 
is the "most active human faculty," that is, the 
faculty least under the limitations of material 
sense and time ; that it can lead one to the ''spirit- 
ual sense" which brings salvation; and that since 
God does not have such knowledge as ''inference" 
or discursive reasoning it must be an inferior 
kind of mentality. 

I cannot refrain from pointing out again the 
hopeless inconsistency that we have here in the 
metaphysics of Christian Science. "Human rea- 
son" is inferior knowledge and is therefore not a 
quality of "immortal Mind." It belongs then to 
"mortal mind." But how can "mortal mind" be 
spoken of as having a faculty that is "most ac- 
tive" or that awakens "man's dormant sense of 
moral obligation" or that teaches him by degrees 
"the grandeur and bliss of a spiritual sense?" 
How can unreality lead to reality? How can 
darkness bring us to light? 

The same inconsistency exists in her doc- 
trine of faith. After saying that error is the 

^ S. and H. p. 327f. 
^No and Yes. p. 25. 



188 The Origin of Christian Science. 

source of belief and that belief arises from the 
material senses, Mrs. Eddy still thinks there is 
some good in it. ' 

While the subject of Mrs. Eddy's psychologi- 
cal inconsistencies is before us we notice briefly 
a very notable one. Mrs. Eddy holds that the 
evidence of the senses is the very opposite of the 
truth, and yet she relies on the evidential value 
that comes from the healing of physical diseases. 
Mrs. Eddy says : "Science reverses the false tes- 
timony of the physical senses, and by this reversal 
mortals arrive at the fundamental facts of be- 
ing;" ' **This great fact is not, however, seen to be 
supported by sensible evidence, until its divine 
Principle is demonstrated by healing the sick and 
thus proved absolute;"" "After a lengthy exami- 
nation of my discovery and its demonstration in 
healing the sick, this fact became evident to me, — 
that Mind governs the body, not partially but 
wholly. I submitted my metaphysical system of 
treating disease to the broadest practical tests." * 
The "demonstration" and the "tests" are valuable 
only as they reach the judgment through the 
senses. She speaks of a thing being "proved to 
the physical senses." ' I am not able to decide 
whether Mrs. Eddy did not see this inconsistency 
or whether she concluded that her disciples would 



^ Cf. 8. and H. pp. 208 and 526. cf. Retros. and Intros. p. 75. 
=» 8. and H. p. 120. cf. pp. 122, 252, 284. 
» 8. and H. p. 109. 
* 8. and H. p. 111. 
» 8. and H. p. 46. 



Psychology. 189 

not see it. What is the use to prove anything to 
the ''physical senses" when their testimony is 
"false testimony" and must be reversed? 

However we are not concerned primarily 
with the absurdities of the positions of Christian 
Science but with the fact that it reproduces the 
principles of Neoplatonism. When Mrs. Eddy 
follows the Neoplatonists in psychology without 
their metaphysics, her slavery to them becomes 
the more palpable. 

Plotinus says : "Sense, and not intellect, will 
have an apprehension of things external; and if 
you are willing to grant it, this will also be the 
case with the dianoetic power and opinion." ^ The 
"dianoetic power" means reasoning faculty. 
Proclus says: "Of the whole rational soul, one 
part is intellect, another is dianoia (discursive 
reason), and a third is opinion;" ' "Dianoia is the 
knowledge of things which subsist between in- 
telligibles and the objects of opinion." ' 

Spinoza, as usual, follows Plotinus and Pro- 
clus. Consider carefully his analysis of knowl- 
edge found in his Ethics' and these statements: 
"The nature and efficacy of the natural reason 
consists in deducing and proving the unknown 
from the known ;" ' which he holds to be "percep- 
tion arising when the essence of one thing is in- 



^5. 3. 1. cf. 5. 9. 7.; 3. 6. 4.; 6. 9. 3. 

==011 Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 188.) cf. Prov. 1. (p. 3.) 

•On Tim. Bk. 2. (Vo. I. p. 207.) 

* Eth. 2. 40. Note 2, and cf. 2. 41. 

''Theo.-Pol. Treat. Chap. 7 (p. 113.) 



190 The Origin of Christian Science. 

f erred from another thing, but not adequately; 
this comes when from some effect we garner its 
cause, or when it is inferred from some general 
proposition that some property is always pres- 
ent." ' It arises from "notions common to all men" 
which "form the bases of our ratiocination." ' 

Spinoza does not mean by the expression ''not 
adequately,'' that there is error in the activity or 
process of reason but rather that it gives us the 
truth dimly as Mrs. Eddy expresses it. Notice 
that he says it proceeds from effect to cause 
and is thus in contrast with the intuitive 
process of the understanding which proceeds from 
cause to effect as we have seen that Mrs. Eddy, 
the Neoplatonists and Spinoza teach. 

When I began to study Spinoza I was sur- 
prised to find that he identifies love with the un- 
derstanding. I supposed that he did so because 
he wanted to embody in his philosophy at least 
the semblance of this Christian virtue; that his 
psychology would not permit him to regard love 
both as an affection and as a noble and ennobling 
virtue, and since it would militate against him to 
reject it boldly he chose to retain only the name. ' 
I was more surprised, however, to find that the 
Neoplatonists whom he was reproducing had 
made the same disposition of love. What pur- 
pose they could have had in doing so, since they 



"^Imv. of the Und. p. 8. ^ Eth. 2. 40. Note 1. 

* Prof. E. E. Powell in his able interpretation of Spinoza has 

the same fancy. Cf. his Spinoza and Religion, p. 249. 

But he seems not to be aware of the origin of this 

theory. 



Psychology, 191 

were openly hostile to Christianity I am unable to 
imagine, unless it was that this virtue was so gen- 
erally and profoundly appreciated in their day 
that they too must in some fashion exalt it. And 
still another surprise was awaiting me — the dis- 
covery that Christian Science also identifies love 
with understanding. We have here another ex- 
ample of what we consider something different 
from pure thought pressed down into the Chris- 
tian Science funnel and made to come out the little 
end as only that. 

Mrs. Eddy says: "Infinite Mind cannot be 
limited to finite form, or Mind would lose its in- 
finite character as inexhaustible Love ;*' ' ''What 
is infinite Mind or divine Love?'* "" She calls Mind 
and Love synonyms. ' Sentences that give this 
conception of love abound in Mrs. Eddy's writ- 
ings. It is unnecessary to say that mind does noth- 
ing but understand or exercise consciousness. 
She does not consider love as affection or desire 
or any mental state that is produced by external 
objects or implies the existence of time. Love is 
intellectual knowing and only this. So she says : 
"To love one's neighbor as one's self, is a divine 
idea." ' 

Plotinus says: "Intellect, therefore, pos- 
sesses a twofold power ; one, by which it perceives 
intellectually, and beholds the forms which it con- 



^ 8. and H. p. 257. 

* S. and H. p. 256. 

' 8. and H. p. 115. cf. p. 583, 

* 8. and H. p. 88. 



192 The Origin of Christian Science, 

tains; but the other, by which it sees things be- 
yond itself by a certain intuition and reception (of 
the objects of its vision). * * * ^j^^j ^j^^ 
former, indeed, is the vision of intellect replete 
with wisdom ; but the latter of intellect inflamed 
with love ;" ' Notice that it is intellect that has 
the quality of love that is the power by which it 
soars as upon wings into ecstatic union with the 
good, the highest blessedness according to the 
Neoplatonists and Mrs. Eddy as we shall see. He 
works the subject out carefully and at length, com- 
paring and contrasting this intellectual love of the 
beautiful and the good with the earthly love or 
passion of lovers. ' 

Spinoza speaks often of * 'intellectual love," ' 
which, he says, is **a love towards a thing immut- 
able and eternal," * ''springs from the third kind 
of knowledge" ' or understanding and "must be 
referred to the mind in so far as the latter is ac- 
tive," ^ or in so far as the mind is non-passive ; 
that is, it is a love that must be considered not as 
affection but as intellectuality. 

We now turn our attention to certain applica- 
tions of the psychological principles that we have 
discovered in Christian Science and Neoplatonism. 
Their value in the argument we are making lies 
in the fact that they are logical applications and 



^ 6. 7. 35. 

=» Cf. 6. 7. 33-35. 

^Etn. 5. 32. Corol. 

^Etn. 5. 20. Note. 

« Etn. 5. 42. Proof, cf. 5. 33. 

'^Etn. 5. 42. Proof. 



Psychology, 193 

are worked out in detail by Mrs. Eddy as by the 
Neoplatonists. Again let me remind the student 
that I am not selecting at random certain similari- 
ties between the two systems that could be acci- 
dental, but I am showing that the materials of 
one building even to the finishing pieces have been 
used in constructing the other. The bricks, 
boards, shape, size, and trimmings of Mrs. Eddy's 
psychological edifice are not only like those of the 
Neoplatonic temple but are these actual materials 
and qualities. There are really not two struc- 
tures but one. An attempt has been made to ren- 
der the old one modern by simply effacing from 
the walls the names of heathen gods and writing 
in their stead the names of Christian ideas. 

The first application that may be taken up 
has reference to language. Mrs. Eddy finds fault 
with verbal expression as being a hindrance to 
thought rather than a help. The reason is that 
words, written and spoken, are dependent on the 
physical senses, which give error rather than 
truth. Mrs. Eddy is quite consistent in her de- 
preciation of language. Her rejection of audi- 
ble prayer is a perfectly logical conclusion. If to 
understand truth we must get away from all that 
is physical then a written or spoken utterance is 
a hindrance. But one wonders why the author 
of Christian Science did not apply this principle 
to all use of language and refrain altogether from 
speaking and writing. Why does she attempt to 
state truth by means of error ? ' 



» Cf. /S. and H. p. 126. 



194 The Origin of Christian Science. 

Mrs. Eddy says: "The chief difficulty in 
conveying the teachings of divine Science accu- 
rately to human thought lies in this, that like all 
other languages, English is inadequate to the ex- 
pression of spiritual conceptions and propositions, 
because one is obliged to use material terms in 
dealing with spiritual ideas ;" ' "If we array 
thought in mortal vestures, it must lose its immor- 
tal nature ;'' ' "In its literary expression, my sys- 
tem of Christian Metaphysics is hampered by ma- 
terial terms, which must be used to indicate 
thoughts that are to be understood metaphysical- 
ly ;** ' "All prayer that is desire is intercessory ; 
but kindling desire loses of its purest spirituality 
if the lips try to express it.'* * 

Spinoza says : "All that we clearly and dis- 
tinctly understand is dictated to us, as I have just 
pointed out, by the idea and nature of God; not 
indeed through words, but in a way far more ex- 
cellent and agreeing perfectly with the nature of 
the mind." ' 

Plotinus had the same objection to uttered 
prayer that Mrs. Eddy had. He says: "In- 
voking God himself, not with external speech, 
but with the soul itself, extending ourselves in 
prayer to him, since we shall then be able to pray 
to him properly, when we approach by ourselves 



^ S. and H. p. 349. 

' 8. and H. p. 260. 

^No and Yes. p. 19. 

* No and Yes. p. 48. cf. fif. and H. pp. 4, 7, 8, 12. 

^Theo.-Pol. Treat. Chap. 1 (p. 14.) 



Psychology. 195 

alone to the alone." ' When Christian Scientists, 
then, fail to give thanks orally at the table, they 
are not following Christ, who set us an example 
for so doing, but Plotinus, the heathen. 

Porphyry long ago explained the principle of 
the position, that words are a hindrance to the 
highest thinking, thus: ''All are familiar with 
bodies, but the knowledge of incorporeal essences 
is attained with great difficulty, because our no- 
tions about their nature are indefinite, and we 
are not able to behold them by and through in- 
tuition as long as we are under the dominion of 
the imagination." ' It hardly needs to be said that 
we are ''under the dominion of the imagination" 
when we are subject to or dependent on words. 

One may be surprised, if not confused, to find 
that Mrs. Eddy identifies revelation with intel- 
lectual discovery. This conclusion, akin to the 
one just discussed, follows also from her psychol- 
ogy. Divine revelations by means of the eye or 
ear are inferior or impossible. They originate 
on the contrary in the mind itself. Whenever 
one sees a truth, such as the geometrical principle 
that the three angles of triangle are equal to two 
right angles, he has a revelation. Of course this 
is another example of the trick of using a word 
bereft of its proper meaning. 

Mrs. Eddy says : "Truth is a revelation ;" ' 
"Science * * * j^^s a spiritual, and not a 

^5. 1. 6. 

""Aux. 35. cf. 40. 

» 8. and H. p. 117. 



196 The Origin of Christian Science, 

material origin. It is a divine utterance ;" ' "All 
Science is a revelation ;" ' "To one 'born of the 
flesh* however Divine Science must be a discov- 
ery;" ' "The revelation of truth in the understand- 
ing came to me gradually and apparently through 
divine power." * Mrs. Eddy considers that one 
who understands Christian Science or any truth 
has received a revelation but not by means of a 
physical medium; and also that her understand- 
ing of Christian Science was a kind of discovery. 

Though this psychology is Neoplatonic we 
could hardly expect such definite statements as 
these by the Neoplatonists relative to the subject 
of prophetic revelation. But we do find them in 
Spinoza's writings. After arguing that "God 
can communicate immediately with man," that is, 
"without the intervention of bodily means," and 
that the receiving of such a revelation requires 
a superior quality of mind, he says : "No one ex- 
cept Christ received the revelations of God with- 
out the aid of imagination, whether in words or 
vision." " 

I do not find this application of the psycho- 
logical principle that we are discussing in the 
original Neoplatonists, but it is found in the writ- 
ings of one of their followers, Averroes, an Ara- 
bian philosopher and theologian of the twelfth 



1 8. and H. p. 127. 

' Retros. and Intros. p. 45. 

» Retros. and Intros. p. 42. cf. p. 55. 

* 8. and H. p. 109. 

'Theo.-Pol. Treat. Chap. 1 (p. 19.) 



Psychology. 197 

century. ' I repeat it is an application of Neo- 
platonic psychology to the subject of prophetic 
revelation. But Synesius, as we shall see, held es- 
sentially to the same position. 

The doctrine that we have been considering 
is properly called mysticism, that is, rational mys- 
ticism. It originated with Philo and received 
definite character at the hands of the Neoplaton- 
ists. ' It has been repeated often and notably by 
Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy. If any one doubts that 
Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy are mystics he either does 
not know what mysticism is or he does not under- 
stand them. What is mysticism ? Who is a mys- 
tic? One who holds that God and divine truth 
can be discerned immediately by the mind and 
that they are in this way best understood and who 
depreciates all physical or material means of ob- 
taining divine knowledge, as either unnecessary 
or a hindrance, is a mystic. 

In Mrs. Eddy's doctrine of predictive proph- 
ecy, we find another application of Neoplatonic 
psychology. Since mind knows all, the future 
must be as clearly discerned by it as the present. 
Therefore if we are controlled wholly by mind we 
may forecast the future perfectly. If on the con- 
trary our prognostication is based on external in- 
dications or physical signs it is apt to be false. 

Mrs. Eddy says: "There is mortal mind- 
reading and immortal Mind-reading. The latter 



^ Cf. Philosophie und Theologie von Averroes, by M. J. 

Muller, pp. 15, 59, 64, 65, 84, 86. 
' Cf. Windelband's Hist, of Phil. 2. 2. 18. 6. 



198 The Origin of Christian Science. 

is a revelation of divine purpose through spiritual 
understanding, by which man gains the divine 
Principle and explanation of all things. Mortal 
mind-reading and immortal Mind-reading are 
distinctly opposite standpoints, from which cause 
and effect are interpreted. The act of reading 
mortal mind investigates and touches only human 
beliefs. Science is immortal and co-ordinate 
neither with the premises nor with the conclu- 
sions of mortal beliefs. 

The ancient prophets gained their foresight 
from a spiritual, incorporeal standpoint, not by 
foreshadowing evil and mistaking fact for fic- 
tion, — predicting the future from a groundwork 
of corporeality and human belief. When suffi- 
ciently advanced in Science to be in harmony with 
the truth of being, men become seers and prophets 
involuntarily, controlled not by demons, spirits, or 
demigods, but by the one Spirit. It is the prerog- 
ative of the ever-present, divine Mind, and of 
thought which is in rapport with this Mind, to 
know the past, the present, and the future." ' 

This lengthy quotation gives the position so 
well that others need not be recounted. Notice 
that Mrs. Eddy explains in the same way mind- 
reading and the prediction of future events. This 
is logically consistent since to her all events are 
mental. 

Spinoza, attempting to explain to a father 
how he might have discerned the future of his 



» iSf. and H. p. 83f. 



Psychology. 199 

child, says: *'No effects of imagination spring- 
ing from physical causes can ever be omens of 
future events ; inasmuch as their causes do not in- 
volve any future events. But the effects of the 
imagination, or images originating in the mental 
disposition, may be omens of some future event; 
inasmuch as the mind may have a confused pre- 
sentiment of the future. It may, therefore, imag- 
ine a future event as forcibly and vividly as 
though it were present; for instance a father (to 
take an example resembling your own) loves his 
child so much that he and the beloved child are, as 
it were, one and the same. And since (like that 
which I demonstrated on another occasion) there 
must necessarily exist in thought the idea of the 
essence of the child's states and their results, and 
since the father, through his union with his child, 
is a part of the said child, the soul of the father 
must necessarily participate in the ideal essence 
of the child and his states and in their results." ' 

Notice in this language that Spinoza holds 
that future events are discerned not by means of 
present external events affecting the mind but by 
the internal nature of the mind itself; and that 
such events, since they are mental states are dis- 
cerned by one mind on account of its union with 
or relation to another mind with reference to 
which these events or states are to happen. All this 
follows from the theory that there is one universal 
mind, activities of which all particular minds or 

^Letter, 30. 



200 The Origin of Christian Science, 

mental states are. To him as to Mrs. Eddy the 
power to know the future is a kind of mind-read- 
ing. 

This is Neoplatonic speculation. 

Synesius, in his curious and interesting work 
on Dreams, gives a like explanation of divination 
or discernment of the future. He distinguishes 
between "external divination" and "philosophic," ' 
the latter and best kind being possible to all per- 
sons, since all have the power of intuitive knowl- 
edge. He says: "Our oracle dwells with us;" 
"Each of us is in himself the proper instrument" 
for divination ; ' "So wise a thing is a soul at leis- 
ure from the turmoil of business cares (market 
senses) which bring to it something that is alto- 
gether foreign. The ideas which it has and those 
which it receives from intellect, it, becoming 
alone, furnishes to those who are turned to the 
things within and makes a road for the things 
from the divine. For to it, being in this state, 
there arises also the God of the universe as its 
companion on account of its nature being from 
the same source." ' Synesius, like Spinoza and 
Mrs. Eddy, depreciates a divination based on im- 
ages which are excited in the mind or impressed 
upon it from without, calling them "flowing 
images" ' and "confused images." " 



^Dreams, 15. 
"^Dreams, 15. 
3 Dreams, 19. cf. 21. 
* Dreams, 20. 
^Dreams, 21, 



Psychology. 201 

It may be said that if occultism or magic is 
found in Christian Science it must be connected 
with this theory of the oneness of all minds. But, 
whether or not Mrs. Eddy and her followers ever 
practiced this black art, it does not belong prop- 
erly to Christian Science. I am willing to free 
real Christian Science from this stigma. 

This doctrine that one can by virtue of the 
unity of his mind with God foretell the future is 
found in Philo, ' concerning whom it should be 
noted that his philosophic principles were deter- 
mined by Plato and that he had great influence on 
the Alexandrian school of thought in general and 
in particular on Jewish philosophy and the Kab- 
bala, the influence of which on Spinoza has often 
been observed especially by Is. Misses. "^ 

In dismissing this point it should be observed 
that we have here another inconsistency in the 
psychology of Mrs. Eddy and in this case of the 
Neoplatonists also. To the intellect or under- 
standing, the knowledge of which is eternal and 
which has no sense of time, there is attributed a 
discernment of the future. This is worse than 
sophistry. It is dialectical hypocrisy. 

In concluding this discussion of psychology 
we trace a parallel of interest and force in the 
matter of mathematical demonstration. Since 
Christian Science and Neoplatonism emphasize 



^Cf. Windelband's Hist, of Phil. 2. 2. 18. 6. Note: Windel- 

band here traces Neoplatonic Mysticism also to Philo. 

* In Zeitschrift fUr Exacte Philosophie. Vol. VIII. pp. 359-367. 



202 The Origin of Christian Science, 

the importance of a knowledge that is non- 
temporal and not based on the senses but is sim- 
ply consciousness, or self-evident knowledge that 
consists of ideas whose being involves their being 
true, it is natural and logical that both should 
make much of the mathematical method of proof 
or of what may be better termed "mathematical 
knowing." For we cannot say that self-evident 
ideas are proved at all. What is meant by math- 
ematical demonstration is that mathematics, 
arithmetic and geometry, constitute a discipline 
that leads the mind from the sensible or material 
to the intellectual or spiritual. It is a method 
rather of illumination. 

We can simplify the subject by observing that 
the theory we are now dealing with, had its origin 
with Plato. He says: "Geometry, no doubt, is a 
knowledge of what eternally exists." ' We recall 
his famous requirement made of students who 
would enter his lecture hall : No one should enter 
here who is not versed in geometry, ^ The reason 
such a condition was made by Plato should be ob- 
vious to all students of his philosophy. The rea- 
son is that geometry is a means of discipline to 
the mind, teaching it how to pass from objects of 
sense to objects of thought. 

Prof. Paul Shorey makes good his contention 
against Zeller's interpretation of Plato, namely, 
that "the mathematical principle * * * stands 
midway between material objects and the ideas." 



^ Republic. Bk. 6. Section 527. 

>Cf. Repul)Uc. Bk. 6. Sections 510-511 and 527. 



Psychology. 203 

As a discipline or means of developing the mind, 
mathematical science may be intermediary, a 
method to teach the mind to pass from the sphere 
of sense to the sphere of ideas ; but "mathematical 
numbers" are "ideal numbers,'' that is, ideas. 
They are to be distinguished, of course, from 
"concrete numbered things." We have in Plato 
"numbered things" and "ideal numbers," but no 
third something between them. ' 

The Neoplatonists following Plato in his 
psychology follow him also in his method of math- 
ematical demonstration. Plotinus says: "He 
(who would learn philosophy) must be instructed 
in the mathematical disciplines, in order that he 
may be accustomed to the perception of and be- 
lief in an incorporeal essence ;" ' "Geometry, 
which is conversant with intelligibles, must be ar- 
ranged in the intelligible world." ' 

The noted English deist and infidel, Thomas 
Taylor, an ardent student and great admirer of 
the Neoplatonists, understanding the use made by 
them of geometry, said a century ago : "We are 
surprised to find a use in geometry which at pres- 
ent it is by no means suspected to afford. For 
who would conceive that it is the genuine passage 
to true theology and the vestibule to divinity?"* 
We would not deny that it is a means of learning 



^ Unity of Plato's Thought, p. 83. 
^1. 3. 3. 

»5. 9. 11. cf. 2. 9. 16.; Proclus in Prov. p. 38f. 
* In Preface to his translation of Proclus' Commentary on 
Euclid. 



204 The Origin of Christian Science. 

such divinity as he and all Neoplatonic pantheists 
have in mind, a divinity that denies personality 
and purpose to God. 

Spinoza "follows in the train'* of the Neopla- 
tonists. He writes to Albert Burgh that he knows 
he has the true philosophy, which to him is synon- 
ymous with theology, ''in the same way as you 
know that the three angles of a triangle are equal 
to two right angles." ' Arguing against the doc- 
trine of "final causes," he says: "Such a doc- 
trine might well have sufficed to conceal the truth 
from the human race for all eternity, if mathe- 
matics had not furnished another standard of 
verity." ' He appreciates the value of "mathe- 
matical proof" and "knowing mathematically," ^ 
as Proclus does of "understanding mathematical- 
ly," * and says in his Ethics that his purpose is to 
"treat of human vice and folly geometrically." ' 
The original title of the Ethics which contains his 
metaphysics and theology was Ethics Geometrical- 
ly Demonstrated. 

Mrs. Eddy trails after the Neoplatonists and 
Spinoza. Explaining how she discovered Chris- 
tian Science she says: "'My conclusions were 
reached by allowing the evidence of this revela- 
tion to mutiply with mathematical certainty." 



^Letter, 74. 

^ Eth. 1 Appendix. 

^Letter, 34. 

*0n Tim. Bk. 3. (Vol. II. p. 89.) 

^Etn. 3 Preface, cf. Theo.-Pol. Treat. 15. 

« S. and H. p. 108. 



Psychology. 205 

Arguing the certainty of Christian Science prin- 
ciples she says: ''Science relates to Mind, not 
matter. It rests on fixed Principle * * * 
The addition of two sums in mathematics must 
always bring the same result. So it is with logic. 
* * * So in Christian Science." ' She appre- 
ciates very highly "spiritual mathematics." ' 

I do not refrain from making the comment 
that it may sound very fine for one to say he 
knows his religion mathematically but that it is 
trifling little religion that he so knows. 

The writings of the Neoplatonists and Mrs. 
Eddy abound in examples of mathematical demon- 
stration and illustration too numerous to men- 
tion. ' 

Again the writer would beg leave to remind 
the reader that he places no emphasis on the mere 
fact that Mrs. Eddy uses mathematical illustra- 
tions as the Neoplatonists do ; but he would stress 
the point as having immense value that she makes 
use of such illustrations, as they do, because of 
the agreement of her psychology with theirs and 
because the logical relation and force of such 
demonstration are the same in her system as in 
theirs. 



^ S. and H. p. 128. cf. No and Yes. p. 20. 

' 8. and H. p. 3. 

'See examples in Plotinus: 5. 1. 11.; 4. 2. 1.; 4. 3. 2.; 1. 1. 

4.; 6. 4. 13.; 6. 5. 4-5. 

See examples in Proclus: Prov. 1. (p. 9); On Tim. Bk. 

1. (Vol. I. p. 80), and Bk. 3. (Vol. I. p. 444 ff and also 

Vol. II. p. 116f). They are very numerous in Theo. Ele. 

See other examples by Mrs. Eddy: 8. and H. pp. 3, 81, 

111, 113 and 282. 



206 The Origin of Christian Science. 

The parallel we have drawn between Mrs. 
Eddy's psychology and that of the Neoplatonists 
is a deadly one. The identities here alone are so 
damaging to Mrs. Eddy's claim to originality as 
to destroy it utterly. Her case is absolutely hope- 
less. She and her followers are in a pitiable 
plight. They have entangled themselves in 
meshes out of which it is impossible for one to 
extricate them. They can ''save their face" only 
by keeping themselves ignorant of the psycho- 
logical shamming involved in their system or by 
a bracing and brazen affront. Many do it the 
first way, but a few, we are persuaded, do it the 
other way. Mrs. Eddy's advice to her disciples 
not to read anything opposed to her writings is a 
wise defensive policy. ' But it is the method of all 
slave-holders. 



*Cf. Retros. and Intros. p. 104 and Manual of Mother 
Church, p. 81. 



CHAPTER VI. 
ETHICS. 

We come now to trace the last parallel be- 
tween Christian Science and Neoplatonism. It is 
a parallel in ethical principles. 

Since many of these principles are involved 
in the subjects already discussed and have been 
dwelt upon more or less and shown to have their 
origin in Neoplatonism, this chapter may be made 
briefer than the preceding ones. 

It will clear the field somewhat for us to no- 
tice that Christian Science is not only not Chris- 
tianity but that it is a question whether or not it 
should be classified as a religion at all. It is a 
philosophy, a system of metaphysical and ethical 
principles. 

The proof of this position is that the doctrine 
of mercy, of forgiveness, which Christian Science 
rejects, belongs properly to what is termed re- 
ligion. Mrs. Eddy says: *'The destruction of 
sin is the divine method of pardon. * * * 
Being destroyed, sin needs no other form of for- 
giveness ;" ' '*The pardon of divine mercy is the 
destruction of error.'* ' Christian Science knows 
no such thing as guilt, and has no need of mercy. 



^ S. and H. p. 339. 

» /Sf. and H. p. 329. cf. pp. 5, 11. 



208 The Origin of Christian Science, 

It follows naturally from this theory that, 
whatever salvation may be, it is obtained by works 
and so Mrs. Eddy teaches. The idea that Christ 
suffered as a substitute for us she vehemently 
rejects. ' Christ is the way-shower and nothing 
more. The notion that God's just wrath against 
sin can be appeased, whether it be an heathen be- 
lief or a Christian faith, she would consider a su- 
perstition. It is very natural therefore to find 
Mrs. Eddy following Plato and teaching the doc- 
trine of purgatory or probation after death. * 

The highest ideals, therefore, of Christian 
Science are ethical, and this review of its ethical 
principles will render our survey of her teachings 
quite complete. We are compassing her entire 
body of doctrines. She has written much but she 
sets forth almost nothing that we do not take ac- 
count of. There is in her books a monotonous 
repetition. Mrs. Eddy realized the value of "line 
upon line and precept upon precept,'' though 
there be no change or advance in thought. 

There is no parallel between Christian 
Science and Neoplatonism more striking and more 
fundamental than the theory that evil is a nega- 
tion, the mere absence of reality. We have nat- 
urally touched upon this subject before, as it was 
unavoidable, but here we are to scrutinize it very 
carefully. 

Let us recall that Neoplatonism and Chris- 
tian Science are rigid monistic systems. They 



» Cf. S. and H. p. 22. cf. No and Yes. p. 42f. 
» Cf. ^S. and H. p. 46. cf. p. 569. 



Ethics. 209 

hold that there is harmony in the universe con- 
sidered in its entirety. Sin or evil must be either 
discord in the universe or be no part of it. Since 
it cannot be the former, it follows that sin has no 
place in the universe. This is the same as saying 
it is the absence of reality. 

Mrs. Eddy says : "Since God is All, there is 
no room for his unlikeness. God, Spirit, alone 
created all, and called it good. Therefore evil, 
being contrary to good, is unreal, and cannot be 
the product of God ;" ' "Evil is nothing, no thing. 
Mind, nor power." ^ 

This theory has its roots in the Platonic doc- 
trine of ideas. The world of ideas constitutes the 
world of reality and in this world there is no dis- 
cord. Since therefore evil is not in the world 
of reality it is unreal. Plotinus so reasons con- 
cerning the Platonic world of ideas. He says: 
"There is no paradigm of evil there (world of 
ideas). For evil here (in the world of sense) 
happens from indigence, privation, and defect." ' 
The thought is that in the world of ideas which 
the Neoplatonists consider the realm of the di- 
vine mind, there is no principle of evil; but evil 
is simply the lack of such divine mind. To that 
degree to which one partakes of the divine mind 
or has understanding he has reality or is good ; in 
so far as he comes short of it he lacks reality or is 
evil. Again Plotinus says: "Evil and depravity 



^ 8. and H. p. 339. 
' S. and H. p. 330. 
»5. 9. 10. 



210 The Origin of Christian Science. 

in the soul will be privation ;" ' 'The evil of the 
soul must be considered as the absence of good ;" ^ 
"If evil anywhere subsists, it must be found 
among non-entities, must be itself a certain species 
of non-entity." ' Proclus keeps step with Plo- 
tinus and considers that there are not "in in- 
tellect paradigms of evils.'' ^ Proclus reasons in the 
same way as Mrs. Eddy does, saying: "Because 
good is the cause of all things, it is requisite that 
evil should have no subsistence among beings." ' 
Compare this sentence carefully with the next to 
the last one given just above from Mrs. Eddy. 

Spinoza repeating the thought of the Neopla- 
tonists, as we may anticipate, says: "I cannot 
admit that sin and evil have any positive exist- 
ence ;" ° "Sin, which indicates nothing save imper- 
fection, cannot consist in anything that expresses 
reality." ' 

In the following quotation one may see the 
same kind of reasoning that there is in the first 
sentence above from Mrs. Eddy. Compare them 
carefully. By essence Spinoza means simply be- 
ing, positive existence or reality. He cannot mean 
anything else. He says : "I maintain in the first 
place, that God is absolutely and really the cause 
of all things which have essence, whatsoever they 
may be. If you can demonstrate that evil, error, 
crime, etc., have any positive existence, which ex- 



*1. 8. 11. 

'18 3 

*Nat. of Evil. 3. (p. 144.) 

*2Jat. of Evil 1. (p. 75.) 

* Letter, 32. cf. Letter, 34. 



Ethics 211 

presses essence, I will fully grant you that God is 
the cause of crime, evil, error, etc. I believe my- 
self to have sufficiently shown, that that which 
constitutes the reality of evil, error, crime, etc., 
does not consist in anything which expresses es- 
sence, and therefore we cannot say that God is its 
cause." ' Notice that he argues that since God is 
the cause of all things that have essence or reality 
he cannot be the cause of evil, which does not have 
essence or reality, just as Mrs. Eddy reasons. 
Notice also, as we have had occasion to point out 
before as being true of both Christian Science 
and Neoplatonism, that he puts evil and error in 
the same category. Many sinners are ambitious 
to prove that a sin and a mistake are one and the 
same. Man's practical reason denies it, notwith- 
standing all the fumes of poison let loose in the 
moral atmosphere by all the sophists from Prota- 
goras to Mary Baker G. Eddy. 

In explaining still more the nature of evil 
Mrs. Eddy identifies it with matter or teaches 
that it has a material origin and in this also she 
follows the Neoplatonists. We have seen that 
she and they teach that matter is the opposite of 
mind, that matter is to mind as darkness is to 
light ; that is, that matter is the absence or priva- 
tion of mind. This is the very nature of matter. 
The nature therefore of error and of evil as pri- 
vation is determined by their origin. 

Mrs. Eddy says: "Matter and its claims of 
sin, sickness, and death are contrary to God, and 

^Letter, 36. 



212 The Origin of Christian Science. 

cannot emanate from Him ;" ' "As God Himself 
is good and is Spirit, goodness and spirituality- 
must be immortal. Their opposites, evil and matter, 
are mortal error, and error has no creator. If good- 
ness and spirituality are real, evil and materiality 
are unreal and cannot be the outcome of an infi- 
nite God, good ;" ' ''Banish all thoughts of disease 
and sin and of other beliefs included in matter." * 

Plotinus says: ''Whatever is perfectly des- 
titute of good, and such is matter, is evil in real- 
ity, possessing no portion of good." * 

Proclus says : "Matter is evil itself and that 
which is primarily evil." ' 

We see that both the position of the Neopla- 
tonists and of Mrs. Eddy as to the nature of evil, 
and the reasoning by which it is established, are 
the same. Her language is different from theirs 
but her logic is identical with theirs. 

In another aspect of the subject, namely, in 
the explanation of how the idea of evil arises in 
the mind, we find still another parallel between 
Neoplatonism and Christian Science. Since all 
reality is mind and since evil is a lack of reality or 
mind, the very idea of evil is a lack of mind or the 
failure to understand things perfectly. It is par- 
tial knowledge. The universe is harmonious and 
perfect. When it is fully compassed by the mind, 
there is no discord or inharmony or evil. Sin is 



* 8. and H. p. 273. 

== S. and H. p. 277. cf. pp. 39 and 468. 

* /8. and H. p. 208 f. 

* 1. 8. 5. cf. 2. 4. 16. 
^Nat. of Evil, 3 (p. 122.) 



Ethics, 213 

falling below the divine ideal but not a transgres- 
sion of the divine will. Now since God under- 
stands all things perfectly and since his under- 
standing gives existence and reality to all that is, 
he has no idea of discord, inharmony or evil. 
Therefore God does not know evil. If he had the 
notion of it even it would be real. ' And the less 
knowledge of it we have the more divine-like we 
become and when we become wholly divine we will 
not have even a conception of it. 

We have seen that Mrs. Eddy holds that 
Christ whose mind was perfect had no knowledge 
of sin. ' The very idea of it would render his 
mind imperfect. This is not a visionary, illogi- 
cal fancy of Mrs. Eddy; she has got to hold to 
such a theory. Neoplatonism compels her. 

How now does the notion of error or evil 
arise in the mind? It arises from a par- 
tial or incomplete view of things. It indi- 
cates no viciousness of will or disposition. It 
is simply a falling short in knowledge. It is 
not something positive and contrary to the 
will or wish of God, for God has neither will 
nor wish. Nor is it something contrary to his 
knowledge, for his knowledge constitutes all real- 
ity. As error is not knowing something contrary 
to divine knowledge but failing to have divine 
knowledge; as, for example, to split fine hairs 
still finer, error is not thinking that two and 
three make four but failing to see that they make 



^ Cf. No and Yes. p. 24. 

» Cf. No and Yes. pp. 39 and 45. 



214 The OHgin of Christian Science, 

five; so is it in regard to evil. As all virtue is 
simply a participation of the divine mind so all 
vice is simply a privation of the divine mind. 

Mrs. Eddy says: 'This is the nature of er- 
ror. The mark of ignorance is on its forehead." ' 
The point is that error is a not-knowing. In so 
far as we fail to know or have partial knowledge 
we err or sin. She says: "Material sense de- 
fines all things materially, and has a finite sense 
of the infinite." ' Material sense is erring sinful 
sense, and this has a limited sense of the infinite 
or of God. For Mrs. Eddy this is the same as de- 
fining error or sin as a partial view of the uni- 
verse. She says again: ''Limitations are put 
off in proportion as the fleshly nature disap- 
pears." ' This is equal to saying that a material 
or sinful sense of things is a limited or partial 
sense of things, for we are limited only by our be- 
liefs or mortal thoughts. 

The Neoplatonists theorize in the same fine 
fashion. Plotinus says : "He, therefore, who by 
a survey of the parts blames the whole, blames 
foolishly and without a cause; since it is neces- 
sary, as well by comparing the parts with the 
whole, to consider whether they accord, and are 
accommodated to the whole." * The thought is 
that when we consider nature in its entirety and 
as under the "form of eternity" there is no defect 
or sin. The notion of something being wrong re- 



^ «. and H. p. 555. 

2 iS. and H. p. 208. 

'^ Retros. and Intros. p. 99. 

*3. 2. 3. 



Ethics, 215 

suits from a limited view of nature. Proclus says : 
"Our conduct, so far as pertains to what is uni- 
versal, is right ; but so far as it pertains to what is 
particular, is wrong ;" ' 'The same thing, indeed, 
will be evil to particulars, but good to wholes." ' 
Spinoza follows suit gracefully and says : "When- 
ever, then, anything in nature seems to us ridicu- 
lous, absurd, or evil, it is because we have but a 
partial knowledge of things, and are in the main 
ignorant of the order and coherence of nature as 
a whole ;" " and he considers that when we call 
anything bad, we are led astray by the imagina- 
tion which always sees things imperfectly. ' 

Recall in this connection what has been said 
as to the perfection of the world. 

According to the above position, as will be 
readily discerned, there is to God, who sees all 
things in their entirety and perfection, no evil. 
That Mrs. Eddy so teaches has been already suf- 
ficiently shown. Proclus says: "Wholes have 
a relation to parts different from that of parts to 
each other. To divinity therefore nothing is evil, 
not even of the things which are called evil." " 
And Spinoza says: "In the language of philos- 
ophy, it cannot be said that God desires anything 
of any man, or that anything is displeasing or 
pleasing to him : all these are human qualities and 



^Nat. of Evil. 4. (p. 154.) 

'Nat. of Evil. 7. (p. 167f.) 

*Pol. Treat. 2. 8. cf. Letter, 32. 

*Cf. Eth. 1, Appendix and Eth. 4. Preface. 

•On Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. p. 314.) 



216 The Origin of Christian Science, 

have no place in God ;" ' ^'Adam's desire for earth- 
ly things was evil from our standpoint, but not 
from God's." ' Then it was not really evil. 

The same doctrine is proclaimed as to pain 
and sickness. Since they arise from matter or are 
a material or imperfect sense of things the very 
idea of them should be banished from the mind. 
This is the reason Mrs. Eddy would have us stifle 
all sympathy. * She has a form of consistency. 
She will ride in the Neoplatonic chariot though it 
dash over into the abyss. Did Christian Scien- 
tists take this doctrine seriously they would be- 
come both inhuman and immoral. We may thank 
God that he has so made men and women that 
among the many wheels there may be in their 
heads there is generally there also a balance wheel, 
so that the whole machinery is not smashed to 
pieces. This balance wheel is a native practical 
judgment that affirms the reality of wrong doing 
and the reality of the penalty that must follow it. 
It is the voice of conscience that all the sophistry 
of all the ages cannot wholly muffle. But it must 
be acknowledged that not all Mrs. Eddy's disciples 
are free from the cruelty that her cult would in- 
culcate. 

We have done with the first part of this chap- 
ter, namely, the nature of evil or vice; and we 
turn now to consider the subject of virtue. 



"■Letter, 36. 

"^ Letter, 34. cf. Letter, 32. 

* In the chapter on Theology it is proved that her god has 
no sympathy, like which man should become, she ar- 
gues. 



Ethics. 217 

We are doubtless prepared for the statement 
that since vice consists in the absence of under- 
standing or mind, virtue consists in the presence 
of understanding or mind. This is logical and it 
is the theory of both Christian Science and Neo- 
platonism. Let us not forget our convenient 
Christian Science funnel. Everything that has 
value or virtue must come out the little end as 
mind. If it will not do so it is without worth 
of any kind. 

The one seemingly good thing that may be 
said about this ethical theory is that it simplifies 
wonderfully the moral problems of life. All we 
have to do is to think, to think profoundly or 
metaphysically^ until we see that truth is all and 
error is nothing. And when we have done that 
we have reached the goal of existence, and need 
to do nothing more except to keep on so thinking. 
Yes, this is a very simple analysis of life. It 
enables us to consider questions of character as we 
would numbers in arithmetic and figures in geom- 
etry, as Spinoza ambitiously attempted to do. But 
the simplicity is secured at the sacrifice of the 
principal elements of human nature. When we 
eliminate from life and character all qualities and 
faculties except mathematical thinking by simply 
calling them non-entities, then it is a very easy 
matter to treat of moral relations and all rela- 
tions. But the process is similar to that of an 
anatomist who says, ''the flesh, the nerves and the 
blood are of no importance in the human system. 
They are non-entities; they do not really exist. 



218 The Origin of Christian Science. 

We are concerned with what has reality, namely, 
the bones and nothing more/' This would be in- 
deed a very convenient simplification of the sub- 
ject of physiology. It is a good illustration of 
how the Neoplatonists and Mrs. Eddy dispose of 
human nature. Their system enables us to cast 
out with the calm countenance of superior wis- 
dom, as rubbish for the scrap pile, all the perplex- 
ing problems of life and conduct; that is, it does 
so, after once we solve the difficult problem of 
getting their standpoint. 

We will first notice briefly certain moral 
qualities as illustrations of the view that virtue is 
dimply intellectuality and vice simply the want 
of it. 

For the first example consider temperance. 
One is temperate or has self-control in so far 
as he has understanding. Intemperance is a lack 
of understanding. 

Speaking of instances of reformation from 
"intemperance," "tobacco using" and so forth, 
Mrs. Eddy says: "All this is accomplished by 
the grace of God * * * ^]^g effect of God un- 
derstood.'' ' It is true that she classifies temper- 
ance with "transitional qualities" between "un- 
reality" and "reality";' but she is to be under- 
stood in that case as conceiving that temperance 
indicates a degree of intellectuality in one who 
has not yet fully escaped from the "physical" and 



^Ch. 8c. vs. Pan. p. 15. 
» Cf. 8. and H. p. 115. 



Ethics. 219 

completely established himself in the "spiritual." 
In so far as he has done so he is temperate. 

The Neoplatonists have the same conception 
of temperance. Plotinus says: "Temperance is 
an inward conversion to intellect." ' Porphyry 
repeats with approval this definition, using the 
same words. ' "Inward conversion to intellect" 
means simply the reign of intellect in the soul. 
Spinoza considers temperance as a moral quality, 
"attributable to the mind in virtue of its under- 
standing (intellect)." ' That is, when one is tem- 
perate, and in so far as he is temperate, he has 
understanding or is intellectual. 

In a like manner Mrs. Eddy disposes of 
''moral courage'' * following Porphyry and Spi- 
noza. 

The student should consider how this theory 
as to temperance is related logically to and de- 
pendent upon the view that the human will, the 
exercise of which involves the sense of time, is a 
power for evil and should be kept inactive. 

We have already discussed the virtue of love 
and shown that Mrs. Eddy and the Neoplatonists 
identify it with understanding. 

We have also discussed sympathy and seen 
that both Neoplatonism and Christian Science 
deny that it is a virtue since it involves suffering. 
Mind cannot suffer. Sympathy therefore is not 



' 1. 2. 6. 

' Cf. Aux. 34. 

*Eth. 3. 59. Note. 

* Cf. S. and H. pp. 327f and 514. 



220 The Origin of Christian Science, 

an activity of mind and cannot be a virtue. It 
has no place in the divine nature and should have 
none in ours. 

Special consideration should be given to Mrs. 
Eddy's doctrine of desire. Desire that may be re- 
solved into love and again resolved into under- 
standing she, of course, would allow, as Spinoza 
does. ' But desire, as the word is properly under- 
stood, desire which is a wish or longing for some- 
thing and requires the lapse of time for its satis- 
faction, she classifies as a weak and unworthy 
state of mind, as does Spinoza. ' Mrs. Eddy co- 
ordinates desire with ^'anxiety, ignorance, error" 
and **fear," ' which of course are states of "mortal 
mind." 

There follows from this explanation of de- 
sire a doctrine of self-denial that belongs natural- 
ly to Christian Science and Neoplatonism. It is 
necessarily in both systems. If we do not find it 
expressed in words it is nevertheless there. And 
it is a marked and well-defined doctrine of self- 
denial. It is in short the eradication of and kill- 
ing of desire. Since desire as such is a wrong 
state of mind we should not have it. This is not 
the control but the destruction of desire. 

It is evident that this is not the Christian 
doctrine of self-denial which is that bad desires 
should be rooted out and good ones implanted. 



*Gf. Etn. 3. 58; 3. 59. Note; Eth. 3 Definitions of the Emo- 
tions. 
' Cf. Etn. 3. 56 and 3. 58. 
^ S. and H. p. 586. 



Ethics. 221 

that low lusts should be supplanted by high aspira- 
tions and not at all that all desire should be stifled. 

Many minds have discerned the oppressive at- 
mosphere of Christian Science which such a kind 
of self-denial creates, — like the night already too 
dark made heavier and colder by a cloud distmct- 
ly felt if not clearly seen. Some have explained 
it as a Stoical element in Christian Science ; but it 
seems that it does not come from Stoicism. Some 
think they detect an element of Buddhism in 
Christian Science and it seems that they are right 
in so thinking. The doctrine of the extinction of 
desire is original in and characteristic of Bud- 
dhism. Nirvana, the Buddhist's heaven, is at- 
tained when desire dies out of the soul. Buddha 
and Mrs. Eddy would get us to heaven by killing 
us. For when all desire is dead the person is 
dead. They would treat us as the economical 
master treated his mule. He taught him how to 
live on one straw a day but, to his owner's dis- 
appointment, so soon as he had acquired the habit 
he died. 

Since we find the same extinction of desire 
taught in Neoplatonism and since Christian 
Science as a system is derived therefrom and since 
it has its logical place in both systems; the more 
plausible conclusion is that this ethical speculation 
came to Mrs. Eddy also through Neoplatonism. ' 



^ other general points of parallelism between Christian 
Science and Buddhism may be found, cf. St. Louis Chris- 
tian Advocate of March 27, 1912, article, Pagan Inva- 
sion, by Rev. S. H. Wainright, D.D. 



222 The Origin of Christian Science, 

There is good reason to believe that Plotinus 
had a knowledge of Buddhism. Indeed, that so 
great a seat of learning as Alexandria was in his 
day, should be ignorant of this mighty system of 
philosophy is quite improbable. 

It is not necessary to prolong the catalogue of 
virtues and vices. The above examples are suf- 
ficient to demonstrate that the fundamental 
theory of Christian Science as to right and wrong 
conduct is identical with that of Neoplatonism. 

If the student wishes to follow this parallel 
between Mrs. Eddy and Spinoza further into de- 
tails, he may do so conveniently by comparing the 
terms found under the ''First Degree'' and ''Sec- 
ond Degree'' of Mrs. Eddy's "Scientific Transla- 
tion of Mortal Mind" ' and Spinoza's Definitions 
of the Emotions. ' Take as a determining stand- 
ard the element of time. The states of mind that 
arise from the sense of time or require the lapse 
of time for their satisfaction are imperfect and 
evil and are not acts of the understanding. Spinoza 
explains them as passive states of mind. Mrs. 
Eddy refers them to "Mortal Mind," an expression 
she coins or uses to cover ignorance or hypocrisy 
with; for it explains nothing. 

In Mrs. Eddy's doctrine of blessedness we 
find a parallel with Neoplatonism. It is an in- 
tellectual condition. It is the result of the activ- 
ity of the understanding. It may be experienced 



* Cf. S. and H. p. 115. 
>Cf. Etn. 3. 



Ethics. 223 

in a greater or a less degree while we are in the 
body but it can be realized in fulness and perma- 
nency only when the spirit is released from its 
prison house of clay. 

When Mrs. Eddy makes use of the terms sal- 
vation and regeneration, she means correct under- 
standing, only this and nothing more. We have 
seen that she holds to salvation by works and since 
to her the only kind of works that have any value 
are activities of thought, the salvation she offers 
is obtained by thinking, thinking metaphysically, 
a la mathematical mode, if you please. The poor 
fool that cannot succeed at this is doomed to dam- 
nation. But as his condemnation is nothing more 
than just a continuing to be his fool-self, he need 
not be much disturbed. As Mrs. Eddy's salvation 
does not lift us very high so her damnation does 
not sink us very deep. Hallelujah! It is not 
"fire and brimstone." It is only materiality, mat- 
ter or mud tempered hot, cold or tepid just as one 
happens to think it is and exactly to his lik- 
ing. 

Mrs. Eddy says: "Through human con- 
sciousness, convince the mortal of his mistake in 
seeking material means for gaining happiness. 
Reason is the most active human faculty. Let 
that inform the sentiments and awaken the man's 
dormant sense of moral obligation, and by de- 
grees he will learn the nothingness of the pleas- 
ures of human sense and the grandeur and bliss of 
a spiritual sense, which silences the material or 
corporeal. Then he not only will be saved, but is 



224 The Origin of Christian Science. 

saved." ^ The "bliss of a spiritual sense," which 
sense as we have seen is the same as intellectual 
understanding, is salvation. 

She says : "Audible prayer can never do the 
works of spiritual understanding, which regen- 
erates ;" ' "He to whom 'the arm of the Lord' is 
revealed will believe our report, and rise into 
newness of life with regeneration. This is hav- 
ing part in the atonement ; this is the understand- 
ing." ' It is clear from these sentences that Mrs. 
Eddy considers regeneration as the rise and reign 
of the understanding. 

This doctrine of salvation may well excite our 
curiosity if not our contempt. When does such 
a mental activity arise ? Is there no salvation for 
children who have not yet come to the age when 
such a psychic phenomenon is possible for them? 
Or for adults who never reach it? Since Mrs. 
Eddy considers Pentecost to be the advent of the 
understanding, ^ what kind of salvation did the 
disciples or the world have before that date? If 
everybody is saved then everyone attains this men- 
tal condition if not in this life then in the future 
life. So Christian Science proclaims a 'post- 
mortem probation, as Plato did and every poor re- 
former does, that bases salvation on works and 
does not understand the grace of God. Mrs. Eddy 
says: "Every mortal at some period here or 



1 8. and H. p. 327f. cf. p. 598f. 

2 8. and H. p. 4. 

' /8. and H. p. 24. cf. p. 39. 

* Cf. S. and H. p. 46f. and p. 43. 



Ethics. 225 

hereafter, must grapple with and overcome the 
mortal belief in a power opposed to God." ' 

It is a pitiable salvation that one may merit 
by his works, that is by his intellectuality, the 
greatest amount of which any one unsanctified 
by grace possesses is small enough and gaseous 
enough to make him swell and burst with conceit. 
Salvation is not something we do for ourselves 
but something done for us and in us by the power 
of God. Jesus Christ knowing the dire need of 
human nature and the infinite grace of God that 
is able to redeem it and to restore it to its lost 
Eden, and knowing Buddha, Plato, Aristotle and 
all the rest of the world's intellectual giants, and 
towering above them as the oak of the forest above 
the hazel brush beneath it and in contrast with 
them, conditioned salvation on an act that is in 
psychic and ethical harmony with the grace and 
greatness of salvation, on an act that does not 
merit it but makes it possible, possible for all, for 
children and simple minded folk, for Abraham 
and all before as well as since Pentecost, namely — 
hear it all ye learned of the earth and come down 
from your pride of knowledge ; hear it, all ye fool- 
ish ones and come up to your birthright. What 
is it? It is faith. That is the word of the soul's 
emancipation. It is a talismanic word. "This is 
the victory that overcometh world * * * Q^J. 
faith." That word made Luther and every hero 
since Abel great ; because it opens the heart to the 



^ /8f. and H. p. 569. cf. p. 46. 



226 The Origin of Christian Science. 

grace of God. It is the window of the soul look- 
ing heavenward and letting in the life-giving Hght. 
This word, this simple, beautiful, inspired and 
mighty word, Mrs. Eddy would empty of its mean- 
ing or resolve it into understanding. Out upon 
such wicked exegesis! To pagandom with it, 
whence Mrs. Eddy got it! 

But we are concerned principally in showing 
that Mrs. Eddy's explanation of salvation and re- 
generation, which is one and the same to her, is 
an echo of Neoplatonism. Proclus says: "A 
conversion to the whole imparts salvation tq 
everything" and "to this conversion prayer is of 
the greatest utility." ' "A conversion to the 
whole," in the case of a thinking being, would be 
simply a conception of the unity of the universe 
or the harmony of all things himself included. 
So Proclus says that ''prayer is of the greatest 
utility" in effecting this result. Remember what 
Proclus and Mrs. Eddy understand prayer to be. 
It is not petition, as we have seen, but metaphysi- 
cal meditation continued until one sees the unity 
of all things, or, what is the same thing in Neo- 
platonism and Christian Science, until he himself 
swings into harmony with the universal order. 
So Proclus, using language a little different but 
meaning the same, says: ''The salvation of all 
things is through the participation of it (First 
Cause) ." ' A thinking being participates in the 
first cause of all, or deity, by means of the activ- 



^On Tim. Bk. 2. (Vol. I. pp. 176 and 178.) 
^Nat. of Evil. 2. (p. 97.) 



Ethics. 227 

ity of the understanding. Spinoza says: "My 
understanding is too small to determine all the 
means, whereby God leads men to the love of him- 
self, that is, to salvation." ' The love here re- 
ferred to is that love which we have seen to be 
identical with intellectual understanding. ' 

As to the experience of regeneration Spinoza 
has this explanation: ''When we now perceive 
such activities, then can we in truth also say, that 
we are born again; for our first birth occurred, 
when we were united with the body, through 
which such activities and movements of the spirit 
arise. But this, our other or second birth will 
take place, when we take notice of altogether dif- 
ferent activities in us, namely, activities of love, 
corresponding to the knowledge of immaterial 
objects, between which activities there is as great 
a difference as there is between the material and 
the immaterial, flesh and spirit. And this can 
with even more right and truth be called the sec- 
ond birth, because there follows first out of this 
love and union an eternal and unchangeable ex- 
istence, as we will show." * 

That Spinoza in this language explains the 
second birth or regeneration as Mrs. Eddy does 
is evident without comment. 

In the highest form of blessedness or the doc- 
trine of the greatest good we find another parallel 
between Neoplatonism and Christian Science. It 



1 Letter, 34. cf. Eth. 5. 36. Note. 

^'Cf. Etn. 5. 33. 

^ Kurz. Al)h. 2. 22. (p. 98.) Trans, from the German Version. 



228 The Origin of Christian Science. 

should be considered first that the state of bless- 
edness is found in a condition of mind and sec- 
ondly that the special force of the parallel lies in 
the fact that both systems place it in the same spe- 
cial kind of mind-state. 

Explained in the simplest language the writer 
can command the position is as follows : All real- 
ity is one ; and the realization of this in thought is 
the highest possible attainment. When we are 
cognizant of limitations of time and sense, of 
physical conditions, of anything finite or even of 
ourselves as something other than deity or mind 
or universal reality or as some finite limitation of 
it we are in an imperfect state of mind or of char- 
acter. Therefore, freeing ourselves from these 
notions or delusion and understanding the unity, 
infinity and identity of reality, ourselves included, 
is the highest blessedness, the greatest good, the 
end of existence. 

Mrs. Eddy says : "To reach heaven, the har- 
mony of being, we must understand the divine 
principle of being ;" ' "To be present with the Lord 
is to have, not mere emotional ecstacy or faith, but 
the actual demonstration and understanding of 
Life as revealed in Christian Science ;" ' "Spiritual 
sense is a conscious, constant capacity to under- 
stand God ;" * "Breaking away from the muta- 
tions of time and sense, you will neither lose the 
solid objects and ends of life nor your own iden- 



* iS. and H. p. 6. 

2 8. and H. p. 14. 

» 8. and H. p. 209. cf. p. 258. 



Ethics. 229 

tity. Fixing your gaze on the realities supernal, 
you will rise to the spiritual consciousness of be- 
ing ;" ' "Every step towards goodness is a depar- 
ture from materiality;" " ''It should be thoroughly 
understood that all men have one Mind, one God 
and Father, one Life, Truth, and Love. Mankind 
will become perfect in proportion as this fact be- 
comes apparent;"' "Mortality will cease when 
man beholds himself God's reflection, even as 
man sees his reflection in a glass ;" * "Immortal 
man was and is God's image or idea, even the in- 
finite expression of infinite Mind." ° 

At the risk of a wearying repetition I remind 
the student that in these sentences Mrs. Eddy 
teaches that heaven is a state of intellectuality; 
that we approach it as we free ourselves from the 
mutations and limitations of time and sense ; that 
man and God are one principle and that man ap- 
proaches perfection or blessedness as he realizes 
this fact ; that man is related to God as the image 
in the mirror is to the form it reflects and in so 
far as we realize this truth we escape from mor- 
tality or imperfection. 

Now let us hear the Neoplatonists. 

Plotinus says: "With respect to the good, 
either the knowledge of, or contact with it, is the 
greatest of things ;" ' "Perfect and true life f lour- 



* 8. and 8. p. 261. cf. p. 265. 
' 8. and H. p. 213. 

» S. and H. p. 467. 

* 8. and H. p. 126. cf. Retros. and Intros. p. 99. cf. 8. and H. 
» 8. and H. p. 336. [p. 515f. 

* 6. 7. 36. 



230 The Origin of Chnstian Science, 

ishes in an intellectual nature ;" ' "It is requisite, 
that the soul of him who ascends to the good, 
should then become intellect, and that he should 
commit his soul to, and establish it in intellect." ' 

Proclus says: "He therefore who lives ac- 
cording to the will of the father (the Demiurgus 
or Intellect) and preserves the intellectual nature, 
which was imparted to him from thence immut- 
able, is happy and blessed ;" ' "Souls of a fortunate 
destiny, giving themselves to intellect * * * 
are permanently established in good; and no evil 
is present with them, nor ever will be." * 

The first source of this speculation, it seems, 
is to be found in Aristotle's doctrine of divine con- 
templation, as a rational activity, in which is 
"eternal blessedness." ^ 

The Neoplatonists, like Mrs. Eddy, regard 
all so-called material knowledge and all limitation 
of time and sense as not only not a help but a hin- 
drance to the attainment of this blessed state. 

Plotinus says: "Since the soul is in an evil 
condition when mingled with the body, becoming 
similarly passive and concurring in opinion with 
it in all things, it will be good and possess virtue, 
if it neither consents with the body, but energizes 
alone (and this is to perceive intellectually and to 
be wise) , nor is similarly passive with it." ' He 



^ 1. 4. 3. 

' 6. 9. 3. 

'On Tim. Bk. 3. (Vol. II. p. 9.) 

^Nat. of Evil. 2. (p. 92.) 

» Cf. Windelband's Hist, of Phil. 1. 3. 13. 15 and 2. 2. 18. 6. 

«1. 2. 3. cf. 2. 9. 6.; 1. 1. 10.; 6. 4. 8.; 6. 4. 16.; 4. 7. 15. 



Ethics, 231 

holds that one may have an immediate vision of 
God, in which the intellectual principle alone is ac- 
tive; and he exhorts the worshipper or thinker 
''to retire within himself," to possess a soul ''con- 
verted to itself" or "converted to intellect," to be 
oblivious of external conditions, to command the 
body and all influences, that bear upon the mind 
through it and from without, to be quiescent ; ' all 
which rhetoric means simply that we should ban- 
ish all finite notions from our mind and think 
metaphysically in order to rise to real worship 
and that to do so is to worship. 

Reasoning in the same way Porphyry con- 
siders the imagination as a veil to our apprehen- 
sion of an eternal essence ; ' since the imagination 
is knowledge that arises from without. Olympio- 
dorus applies the principle to "enthusiasm" or the 
process of becoming God-like, which is the attain- 
ment of the highest good. ' Spinoza has the same 
theory. ' 

Now what particular intellectual conception 
is it that brings us to the state of highest blessed- 
ness or rather is the state of highest blessed- 
ness? It is the conception of the worshipper or 
thinker that all reality is God; that all creation, 
including himself, is but the reflection of God, that 
God and his reflection, like the form and its image 
in the mirror, are one principle. Recall especial- 
ly Mrs. Eddy's sentence: "Mortality will cease 



^Cf. 4. 7. 15.; 5. 1. 10.; 6. 9. 7. 

^ Aux. 41. 

^Cf. Platonist. Vol. IV. No. 1 (p. 31.) 

*Cf. Letter, 60; Eth. 5- 39. Note and 1. 15. Note 



232 The Origin of Christian Science. 

when man beholds himself God's reflection, even 
as man sees his reflection in a glass.'* The "ceas- 
ing of mortality" is of course the coming of life 
and blessedness and this comes as one beholds 
himself related to God as the image in the mir- 
ror is related to the body or form which it reflects. 
Hold fast this reasoning and this illustration. 
Recall that Plotinus uses the same illustration for 
the relation of creation to the creator. The for- 
mer is related to the latter as "an image in water, 
in mirrors, or in shadows" ' to the object produc- 
ing it, he thinks. 

Describing the greatest and sublimest act of 
the soul Plotinus says: "Whoever is a spectator 
of this (divine) world, becomes at one and the 
same time both the spectator and the spectacle. 
For he both surveys himself and other things ; and 
becoming essence, intellect and all-perfect animal 
(or life) he no longer beholds this intelligible 
world externally, but now being the same with it, 
he approaches to the good;'' ' "Perhaps, however, 
neither must it be said that he sees, but that he is 
the thing seen ; if it is necessary to call these two 
things, i. e., the perceiver and the thing perceived. 
But both are one." * 

Notice simply that in the act of the soul in 
which one approaches the good and becomes iden- 
tified with it he is as a spectator beholding so in- 
tently the object of his vision and becoming there- 



1 6. 4. 10. 

2 6. 7. 36. cf. 6. 7. 34. 

»6. 9. 10. cf. 5. 1. 6.; 5. 3. 5. 



Ethics. 233 

by so entranced that he forgets that he is some- 
thing different from it. His soul flows as it were 
into union with it. The seeing agent and the seen 
object blend into one. This is the highest blessed- 
ness said Plotinus sixteen centuries before Mrs. 
Eddy began to think his thoughts after him. 
Proclus reaffirms the doctrine. ' 
Spinoza also, as we are prepared to believe, 
repeats it. He says that the true good, or perfect 
character, consists in *'the knowledge of the union 
existing between the mind and the whole of na- 
ture." ^ The "whole of nature" is a synonym 
with him, as we have seen, for God. So he thinks 
that the greatest good consists in one's knowing 
that he and God, the image and the form that it re- 
flects, are one. Spinoza served as a good me- 
dium for the passage of Neoplantonism to Mrs. 
Eddy. Now, when we remember that he identi- 
fies love with the understanding, this language 
also becomes intelligible: "The intellectual love 
of the mind towards God is that very love of God 
whereby God loves himself" * and "the love of God 
towards men and the intellectual love of the mind 
towards God are identical." * 

The doctrine we have been considering is the 
so-called "deification of man." ' It is that the 
aim of existence and its highest happiness con- 



*Cf. Ifat. of Evil. 3. (p. 111.) and On Tim. Bk. 5. (Vol. II. p. 

431.) 
'Imp. of the Und. p. 6. 
^Eth. 5. 36. 
*Eth. 5. 36. Corol. 
« Cf. Windelband's Hist, of Phil. 2. 2. 18. 6. 



234 The Origin of Christian Science, 

sist in identification with God and, since man's 
essence is his understanding, the consciousness of 
that truth. 

Will the reader see how the doctrine of hu- 
man blessedness which we have been tracing is in 
logical harmony with the doctrines of the nature 
of man, of error and evil, of the trinity and many 
others that we have considered? 

It follows logically from such an explanation 
of human blessedness that it is found in the fad- 
ing out of personality. We have seen that Mrs. 
Eddy's god is not a person but a principle. Since 
man should become like her god then he should 
lose his individuality and personality. Mrs. Eddy 
fights against this inference as did the Neopla- 
tonists ' but her weapons of defense are weak. 
She can do nothing but baldly to deny it. ' She 
cannot disprove it. In the first edition of Science 
and Health, in which she was not so shrewd in 
hiding this deadly defect of non-personality, both 
with reference to God and to man, as she was in 
the late editions of the work, though it is not at 
all eliminated from these, she says: ''Person- 
ality will be swallowed up in the boundless Love 
that shadows forth man; and beauty, immortal- 
ity, and blessedness, be the glorious proof of ex- 
istence you recognize. This is not losing man nor 
robbing God but finding yourself more blessed, 
as Principle than person, as God than man." * 



^ Cf. Plotinus, 4. 3. 5. and Spinoza in Eth. 5. 22. and 5. 23. 

2 Cf. /Sf. and H. p. 259. 

3 p. 227. 



Ethics. 235 

With the passing of one's finiteness or other- 
ness than God must pass his personahty. It is the 
wave of the sea sinking back again into the water 
of the sea and thereby ceasing to be. The indi- 
vidual in order to reach eternal blessedness must, 
like everything else of value, be pressed through 
the Christian Science funnel and made to come 
out as principle ; his personality must be squeezed 
out of him in order to get him to heaven. The 
heaven of Christian Science is about the same as 
the Nirvana of Buddhism. 

A wave that started from Alexandria in the 
third century hit the shores of New England in 
the nineteenth century and by a strange and 
wicked tempest of wind received a new impetus 
and momentum. That wave we are confident 
ought to and will sink back into a calm sea. 

We are reminded of Sidney Smith's sarcastic 
saying that "the ancients have stolen all our best 
thoughts"; which put in plainer prose is that 
some moderns steal the thoughts of the ancients, 
both their best and their worst. If Mary Baker 
G. Eddy ever had an original idea she failed to 
give expression to it. 

And here, patient reader, I may rest my case. 
We have perhaps pursued our investigation as far 
as it is necessary. I have been anxious for you to 
know the character of Christian Science. If you 
have followed me through carefully and compre- 
hended the arguments, you now understand it. 
In doing this you have also obtained some insight 
into the treasury of worldly wisdom, the worth of 



236 The Origin of Christian Science. 

which you are now the better prepared to esti- 
mate properly. The blessing of knowledge is 
then with you. 

There is one thing that I command thee : that 
ihou tell the truth aoout this Dook. And then 
thou shalt have also the blessing of the truth. I 
do not pronounce that blessing out he who sees 
your mind and hears your criticism will pronounce 
it or withhold it. He is not the dumb deity of the 
pantheist but the Christian's personal and holy 
God who knows a lie. 

Keep thyself from the idol, or escape quickly 
from its embrace. "Touch not the unclean thing." 
We shall meet before the throne of him bet ore 
whose face of fire this refuge of learned lies shall 
be burned up. Peace be unto thee then anu now. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

I. The writings of the author of Christian 
Science that are quoted from are as follows : 

Science and Health with Key to the Scrip- 
tures. Edition of 1911. This edition is the one 
referred to in the footnotes unless some other is 
designated. 

Science and Health. Edition of 1875. This 
was the first edition of the work. 

Unity of Good. Edition of 1906. 

Christian Science Versus Pantheism. 19th 
edition, 1908. 

No and Yes. 61st edition. 

Retrospection and Introspection. 36th thou- 
sand, 1907. 

Manual of the Mother Church. 55th edition. 

II. The works of the Neoplatonists that are 
quoted from are the following : 

The Enneads of Plotinus. Of these there are 
six and each one contains nine books. The En- 
nead, the book and the section of the book in order, 
are designated in the footnotes simply by Arabic 
numerals. 

Many of these books were translated from 
the Greek into English about a century ago by 
Thomas Taylor, the enthusiastic English Platonist 
and deist. When not otherwise indicated his 
translation is used. 



238 The Origin of Christian Science. 

Prof. Chas. M. Bakewell in his Source Book 
of Ancient Philosophy gives us many passages, 
most excellently translated by Dr. B. A. G. Fuller. 

Hon. Thomas M. Johnson of Osceola, Mo., has 
translated with discriminating insight a few of 
these books. 

Nearly every passage quoted from Plotinus 
has been studied in the original Greek and also 
in the German in which there is a most discerning 
translation of his complete works by Hermann 
Friedrich Muller. 

Auxiliaries to the Perception of Intelligible 
Natures by Porphyry. Thomas Taylor's transla- 
tion, revised by Thomas M. Johnson in Platonist, 
Vol. 4; Nos. 1 and 2. The language of the Eng- 
lish translation was compared with that of the 
original Greek. 

Four works of Proclus: Theological tile- 
ments, Commentaries on the Timaeus of Plato, 
Ten Doubts Concerning Providence and The Na- 
ture of Evil. 

The new translation of the first work by 
Thomas M. Johnson under the title, Proclus' Meta- 
physical Elements, was used. The translations 
of the others by Thomas Taylor were used. The 
Commentaries in translation are in two large vol- 
umes. London, 1820. The original Greek con- 
sists of five books. The last two works in trans- 
lation are in one volume entitled. Two Treatises 
of Proclus. London, 1833. 

In case of the first two works the language 
in the original Greek was studied. In case of the 



Bibliography. 239 

last two, the Greek not being extant, the Latin 
version of Cousin's edition of these works was 
consulted. 

Synesius On Dreams. The quotations from 
this work were translated from the Greek by the 
author and his colleague, Prof. R. B. Semple. 

Citations to all the above Neoplatonic works 
are by numerals where possible. Otherwise the 
page is specified. 

III. The complete works of Spinoza are : 

1. Principles of Descartes' Philosophy. 

2. Cogitata Metaphysica. 

3. Theologico-Political Treatise. 

4. Political Treatise. 

5. Improvement of the Understanding. 

6. Ethics. 

7. Correspondence. 

8. Knrzgefaste Abhandlung von Gott, Dem 
Menschen und Dessen Gluckseligkeit. 

The translation by R. H. M. Elwes of the 
most important of these works, Nos. 3-7, is the one 
used unless there be specification to the contrary. 

The Latin original has been carefully studied, 
especially in the case of the Ethics, his principal 
work. 

The German translation of Spinoza's com- 
plete works by Kirchmann, Schaarschmidt and 
Baensch has been used; the last mentioned work. 
No. 8, being furnished in this translation but not 
in a Latin edition at hand. 



240 The Origin of Christian Science. 

Citations to Spinoza's worKs also are given 
in numerals when possible; when not, the page is 
specified. 

One work of general reference should receive 
special mention: Windelband's History of Phil- 
osophy. It too is cited by means of numerals. 

The citations in general are so made for the 
convenience of looking up the reference in any 
language and in any edition. 

The other books used, and specified in the 
footnotes, need no mention here. 



SEP 12 1912 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ■IMjj^ 










liliili 
liiiii 




>i^^: 

''^■■■i 






^ 'H^ '; ,<■■.' f;4- ■:<;</ 




^Ji-;: 



